



























































































































































































































































































































eisieiwieteiiyer sta perste tote re thietv gs bedtay ie deus bebe ts NW tki4 tea lis fete i: as pots 9 ve NHAURAAA AAA Witiod Mead iy toe nee ss 
ia aoe anenes Orrterersprrrtiveverrrest STTTILELA TA EREA PaRE ELTA TL TK Tt TIQLERGE Witritiestirsverieiritercrtes SEL rerevetye arse 
TE Terese eiavenatetarteyetetereteternregagspetetenersanacretcteregnrepernterat trate 585273) Eytan EaagaaadaEAzICaR Lata TATA Tagan etes ' 
SE ee EE Ae tesa rata tititei ded tt tet PRIA iT apt eset 
HHPMAHEL HEHE OHH tn HOME ntr ann ntt Saat HE Stee nage 
SETS SEES fereneeeate er eeeTeRrEEaE i itt HER IR ane tani tet 
tists i) babies Bhs Het on peter sreerrery Sei bpepeeeerer rdhy 
Sem eS IECEtRaCeTAEAORREN SMR SETEE TPO eeeitelititileditatne telah Hit PUG eaan See 
it: aaa i Ring oitidgeginttrt edt tint etitetstitetiat thiaeatitis shit Hat bhi th St 
iis Bunt aerer atm ped Eatity aati sada pis ” rittereteiatayep at 344 * rece 1 } baliaasaiaid ihad is +e 
HH SP SRSRELSH TTS enanERnSESSU TRE puead tag i IANn Hr ati si Ri i ii 
Its esWae TTS HTS EIE ite nS HE airy petit ttt 
bpeteaiarats beh ekthey HET EERE uRUT EERE Hyatt ; pitt tsi 
ue ihe Srp rarerereeee yapetels ayer Hhnnhtin sities teat bait rete | i 4 
Tiere + Fersesest ela eda pat ages wrertiersirrs 
Hime tits it Hivbrsestst batt etic tating tita tlt HH Hite ft GH te ' 
pie it Yaaemroesrenteserrpeeneeteenroeres oe ET TH Ha i t Ht : ‘ 
crema IDRIS an eC PTRUATRRSRSU RPE RERTE oat tee phat AR GET My i i 
: ah ¢ 7” H : + | | +.) | itt Ly) 44 st ‘ share * rege + | Beaty: t +H id “ tH pd ’ tt} i 
ae Th eg LL ao ae He ae He i : hs i 
Ba et TH FR eT Tee LEE : 
aB4 1 wit RTE HG i GEESE Har ities ta i} 
fe & be stat sheteesises $ meststersbseetsteesrotsticaeets tidy ik BABE thr Hi i eeditisiey rid) 13) t 
ed ei aa aa Ana aR A ae 
ade $e | hee patsy unt hhh: i i iets } WH + reer iheegh itt ot ty ia} ity 43 Wh Hy if ht tit tty 
ios it Tee aR TEE ESRaea SEER ERG aE ence RE TESTA Ree 
on ia Hi Hee Ca sti a i He ch 
: tf thet bebe stra isest st eartt eitiaitysy rapaeeiettieieeey a + te H ha iets 4 ets rieishd 
ce Hanae Hit ae i Hy ee 
Reaamgseeterersisy sues THe ce it titi ntte it 
a nH SPR ReNreeeSebHT aH iene enced en tty HARE Hi it 
He cua an HHL, CRT RE ee it 
tee H Mute ttt ti Peis bara a Hau itu i ih i Ht H 
ii) | a iit ay rater ith PP Hitt if itt Lina tt Ht at iit 
reat SaaSaseresueeete th CAESAREA SERRATE gg POPE crataeaR tee ceceaneenas regen tHeRtpeseene Tey 
Hohempeaeirtstitig iterate teh tees eh Agger eesti brashevneaucartanu testy atheuh tptnehceeebe ban te Rarireteatt : HELE: 
pete itt hy Ths ibstsases shee t abs Hist i) ie pity rigicis) i it , ratte j he it} Eetrt itt i 
Be HET atte ite Hi re dioh Jaane Cie HR RRR ER reat 
He fp SE ath tan ettiiitn Veen. Be AID RR bier n te tite 
th 4 i t a ee abit ite tinge isa t tt tity i tail : Lsieh ‘ 
pane | rt! eo th i tf Ms ‘ities ‘ tH ' nih ‘ | Li I t H ia srt os 
Ys ate ; i i i Berscreseseseeneeseitt rite RAGE PaME SA ee teay op cent 
ae q ahs { iiiett hh a ‘ Hi * 7 th u th i 
Seah arti ia it Ht Ht Hil fr t 
ci, a Hrueit bith i Ha an eet i 
ea abit ie tht Hi Speers att itt t i firth Spite ett 
HN EE, ne sis it Ht ibaa ii Rett iapieeitatentenar 
bab gists serantt etitititi tie iit miisiteeioeen isthe esas sieestet 
at it 4 i4 bi * 2 vay + * preveaneeeesrtetst 
tH i mbar i sieeatiitE siitetetstt ih pegiteneaeaatnet 
it rit eet ttt etre acintiatt tarot nL 
i ty i ita sit UR BE it 
ts i itt i ut sete Hateibitibaeh pe satstit ae Ht | 
ia fa aH Ee etneah th dn 
a : i ‘ii : at aot itt ra HH He 
445 sega y ie reais + ier 
¥ nehibi bittadesees re ‘ 
i) 


fe 
SEH 
ae rie 
eistet 
Sirti 
aeteidias 


pss: 
4 i 
eheitigtsatetigigs 
dH: ih a 













t:* 


eye etete 


$85 


is 
o— 





=~ 





= 
ina 


oa! 
SS 
ie ies 
leaeaetrs 
SPtsses5a-5 





gests 


reesg 


is 
epee 
fitetere 








rss sg34 
rts 
ria 

ase 
Poe 








te ees 


me bom Sten ae bbw ame ae She ha 
mine we tiecrie liste 





iasedes 








— 
Say 
— 


















































































































































































































t st 
+ ait ty + : ifs 4 $i ; 
Ht bere] eisesttt fsiet reetesdeeti sy +; 
i api i a tf ae if Sra Het 
byeetsisieisisitian btacacheitrasbaasee ry tee sete 
he | Hira Ham ine 
yejesepereslisiei diay, ater aH : SSeS SPSUR aL ICarSROt aT Stat tM tie 
+ i aston — rs z te itietete epHrey days. SiLe 
ae = ee f SRE tH 
selebeieee vt 991 ® " f e 7 ah Sy. 44 
Saati A peatbattetst Hiehaneacereneouemen bcunean tegen it 
i a beet teeta Hinieuui ah RE teieatat neta Pe 
a derpelecerent gh Wepeisilaer the et Ht Hid + 1 Hite 1gias tet 
: f j a3 Aidibbaglpebarae ey ats ‘| or hath +h) 
Leiahe fOleiths. Hates: didisiaee Sse tetetnies Hite Heth did at { bearbeethtad sas teerbieesta a tates iste 
Pistia dition etRSTE ih ithe SHRM it rite lsibatiehigisgs Pbrrpigieegat ay tu 
th } Wield aaa 1 i it ie et { syafey if rina + a ditt ; t bits 4 
i Criseasineeretenri tigi erent “4 eth BESSA Hgiieety ! 
i iit A Rep eirtne Avec eee ae : pet tite rates Hien 
: pastes aeeepgaaeaeateecbeNcococsevateSpbeaescepteae gn reemDecPURENRETeeRE RE : tettiot ih 13 upsides 
+ ni57 i she has phsbete ery i ihe ibe: ay it tit fy ih it eerie . yey if A }4ide 
tet eiereisidi +f aaa i i iat ant: fiche } toapeheestn peer att) iy oe 
! ry | ; Hye $2 4s aber ag ete sesrttartes erat 
ty it ate ay aa sa iis 
sitistel est stbaa tates ated: ith ny Hf sbiaiet 
; aptetieeE ‘etd spe Bhatt tt Hides 





ty 
Bet Haiti 
feGd 








i! 
























Teteletel elas. 































£ 4 


5¢) Sigjeyeoe Sere. titre) 





Py i 
pe st teste) 
! ; irr 
TE ha ; 
‘Ga ‘ it aye past + 
ey we re j 
phe Hi : oe wit 4 a ra 
j : a eet rh reetrer eshte ¥ 
hee. Aan : + He 
be hrrpht nar kre? Saks . 4 i 
: ; 


erie 











ji 
iperarsrsrs 


eT SENT ory: Sha 
eehanabe os 


pt Phi le Saeinte 





irs 

big Seow = 
eo re ese. 
oe Te Teess 


¥. 


ra 





fiw See dead a, 





































4 
te > 
Sid4 bated eth BALA rOROISES aE Ladd a ‘ : : Pe oe tes ah 2) DEE TS 
prada tacetart isstas ee trerae Piet T POU teriytS tt Crtxtite sss petri erent ot SOLON AM KSORASKELIZ EG. WALT TD TETOS bine 2Ace, sAgSbdeblarTE por errostete MSL areses AedngiebsEssItIt ie? 





ave . 


eres 
rarer! 





poget ata let 
‘e 


corp pti 


‘ t 


at peEnrers = a 
pers + i3 trisipivt 











Torx O04 et 6 ad o_o be sores aor 4 Z 4 
Be, ytd aye wy a ee es bc 
aS” VS 2) arte ew Ps xi aM, ‘ees fe ied inne ae Je ati : , 2 Dine“ 
; ‘ a,” ae : 
4 wt r PAD OF | 








‘ ., - eae . + 
"+ 3 ? . ii a 
~ ry 
nf 
¥ et 
“ : s 
\ 
w 
ieee 
> 
ad 
‘ 
‘ 
- 
% 
\ 
« 
- 
/ 
i 
/ 
. 
é 








Ree ee see 
eA OL Os 











The Early Domestic Architecture 
of Connecticut 


Fe 





Published on the Foundation Established 
In Memory of Calvin Chapin 
of the Class of 1788 Yale College 





met 
—_ 
~ 
i) 
a 
— . 
—_— 
vy 
} 
=~ 





ae aN 


eae 





FRONT ENTRANCE 
GRANT HOUSE—EAST WINDSOR 


Be 


pe oe ay or oy cs ca ee cia che ag ors ohn as ays ys oh 
The 
Early Domestic Architecture 
of Connecticut 


By 


J. Frederick Kelly, A.I.A. 





New Haven: Yale University Press 


London - Humphrey Milford - Oxford University Press 


SHS DG Dis cos ss ns ns ee ps Oe Op 


M dcccec xxiv 


Se Si SR a a SS a a Sa a a a a 


GES HIS eIS eis ras es cn ae Hi SESS TS ARS Aa oe Ree he Re RS 


ce es 





AIISIW OVIe ess 











Copyright 1924 by Yale University Press 
Printed in the United States of America ee ee, 
| a 
\ 


The Calvin Chapin Memorial Publication Fund 


TuE present volume is the second work published by the Yale University Press on the 
Calvin Chapin Memorial Publication Fund. This Foundation was established Novem- 
ber 17, 1916, by a gift to Yale University from Arthur R. Kimball, of the Class of 
1877, Yale College, in memory of Calvin Chapin, of the Class of 1788, Yale College, 
who died March 16, 1851. He was born on July 22, 1763, and at the age of fifteen 
served for six months as fifer of a militia company in the Revolution. His preparation 
for College was delayed by the war but was finally completed, and after entering Yale 
he became one of the best scholars in his Class. Following his graduation he spent two 
years as a successful teacher in Hartford, Connecticut, and then began the study of the- 
ology, though meantime continuing to teach. From 1791 to 1794 he served as a tutor 
in Yale College, and then accepted a call to Stepney Parish in Wethersfield, now the 
town of Rocky Hill, Connecticut. From 1805 to 1831 he served as a Trustee of the 
Missionary Society of Connecticut; took a prominent part in the formation of the Con- 
necticut Bible Society in 1809; and was one of the five organizers of the American 
Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions in 1810, holding the office of Recording 
Secretary of the Board for thirty-two years. In September, 1820, he was elected a 


member of the Yale Corporation, serving thereon until his resignation in October, 1846. 


- 


~ ae 
ans ie alot Ae 





DEED ESE EY ERNE MIE MeO FRI RII RIAD MRI RICA DE MRS 


Foreword 


N undertaking this work, the author fully realized that its chief value would 

depend in a large measure upon the accuracy with which it was done. It has 
been his sincere endeavor throughout, therefore, to avoid speculation and to make 
no generalizations which were not backed either by personal observations in exist- 
ing work or by authentic documentary evidence. All measurements have been 
made with the utmost care; and where, as in several instances, it has been neces- 
sary to depend upon dimensions previously obtained by others from work which 
no longer exists, the sources of such data have been authoritative. 

The early Court Records of the New Haven Colony have been comprehensively 
searched for all allusions to building and building materials, and such information 
as the author has considered of interest or value has been included in this work. 

Because of the value of comparative dates, a special attempt has been made to 
assign the authentic date of building to each house alluded to in the text; and in 
every instance where such a figure has been obtained from descendants of the origi- 
nal builder, or from trustworthy documents, it has been placed after the name of 
the house, in parentheses. Unfortunately, it has proved impossible to ascertain the 
exact dates at which many of the early houses were built. In such cases, or where 
there has existed any doubt as to the accuracy of the date generally given a house, 
the author has endeavored to assign a probab/e date of building, which is given, in 
parentheses, preceded by the word czrca. In a number of instances it has been nec- 
essary to arrive at this figure by carefully comparing the house in question with 
similar ones in the same locality, the dates of which were definitely known. 

In comparing the dates of the various houses mentioned in this book, the reader 
must bear in mind that contemporaneous work in different regions varied surpris- 
ingly, owing to conservatism, the strength of local tradition, and the geographical 
relation of the locality to the principal routes of communication. He must also 
realize that in very many instances comparatively little of the house fabric, save 


the framework, is work of the period during which the house was built. Rooms 


X Foreword 


were panelled, ceilings plastered, fireplaces reduced in size, stairs rebuilt, mantels 
introduced, and entrances changed or added during the years after the original 
house-building; so that great caution must be used in attributing the date of the 
house to any of the work within it, with the exception, just stated, of the house 


frame itself. 


CPA POE APOC RH POC OEM OEM NOE HOC POC POO WP OCA OCA ND 


Chapter 


Table of Contents 


LisT oF ILLUSTRATIONS 


. INTRODUCTION 

. [HE House Pian anp Its DEVELOPMENT 
. [HE House FRAME AnD ITs ConsTRUCTION 
. Roor FRAMING 

. [THE OVERHANG 

. [THE SUMMER 

. Masonry 

. THE OuTSIDE COVERING 

. WINDOWS 

. FRoNT ENTRANCES: EaRLy Types 

. FRonT ENTRANCES: LATER TyPEs 

. THE Main Cornice 

. INTERIOR WoopworRK 

. PANELLING 

. MANTELS 

. CUPBOARDS 

. THE STAIRS 

. MouLpINGs 


. HARDWARE 


INDEX 


102 
114 
123 
12 
vies) 
163 
167 
1/3 
190 
04, 
209 





CER SDERR POCA POCA POCA OEE OCA POCA OCR OC NOC NOCD 


List of Illustrations 


Plates 


Prate I. 
Norton House: Guilford. 
Beach House: Montowese. 
Bradley House: North Haven. 
Sun Tavern: Fairfield. 


Pratt II. Facing page 12. 
Older Williams House: Wethersfield. 
Starr House: Guilford. 
Lyons House: Greenwich. 


Facing page 6. 


Lee House: East Lyme. 


Pure 11. Facing page 20. 
Trumbull House: North Haven. 
Warham Williams House: Northford. 
Harrison-Linsley House: Branford. 
Pitkin House: East Hartford. 


Prate IV. 
Bradley House: East Haven. 
House on Post Road: Madison. 
Morris House: New Haven. 
Strong House: Windsor. 


Piate V. 
Stone House: Guilford. 
General Walker House: Stratford. 
Pardee House: Montowese. 
Wildman House: Brookfield. 


Pract VI. 
Pitkin House: East Hartford. 
Cowles House: Farmington. 
Glebe House: Woodbury. 
Gay Manse: Suffield. 


Prearr Vil. 
Hawley House: Ridgefield. 
Starkey House: Essex. 

Old House: Hartford. 
Morgan House: Clinton. 


Facing page 26. 


Facing page 36. 


Facing page 44. 


Facing page 52. 


Prate VIII. Facmng page 60. 
Gleason House: Farmington. 
Whitman House: Farmington. 
Hollister House: South Glastonbury. 
Hyland-Wildman House: Guilford. 


Pruate IX. Facing page 62. 
Drop: Whitman House, Farmington. 
Drop and bracket: Older Cowles House, 
Farmington. 
Drop from a demolished house: Farmington. 
Drop: Moore House, Windsor. 


RrATE OX: Facing page 64. 
Bracket: Gleason House, Farmington. 
Corbel: Caldwell House, Guilford. 
Corbel: Hyland-Wildman House, Guilford. 
Corbel: Hollister House, South Glaston- 
bury. 


Prate XI. Facing page 66. 
Whitfield House: Guilford. 
Welles-Shipman House: South Glaston- 
bury. 
Hart House: Saybrook. 
Colonel Hitchcock House: Cheshire. 


Pratre XLT: 
Osborn House: Southport. 
Bartlett House: Guilford. 
Shelton House: Stratford. 
Griswold House: Guilford. 


Facing page ‘70. 


Pruate XIII. Facing page 72. 
Webster House: East Windsor. 
Hale House: South Glastonbury. 
Chaffee House: Windsor. 
Colonel Barker House: North Haven. 


XIV List of Illustrations 


Pruate XIV. Facing page 
Keeping room: Lee House, East Lyme. 
Fireplace: “White Farm,” Long Hill. 
Panelling: Peck House, Lyme. 

Chimney foundations: Hale House, 
South Coventry. 


PiatE XV. Facing page 
Fireplace: Allyn House, Windsor. 
Fireplace: Hyland-Wildman House, 

Guilford. 
Fireplace: Warner House, Chester. 
Chimney of a collapsed house: Cheshire. 


Prats XVI. 
Knapp House: Fairfield. 
Fairchild House: Stratford. 
Bishop House: Guilford. 
Hurd House: Moodus. 


Facing page 


Prate XVII. Facing page 
Gable: Pardee House, Montowese. 
Front entrance: Morris House, Morris 
Cove, New Haven. 


Portico: Bradley House, New Haven. 
Knell House: Stratford. 


Prate XVIII. Facing page 
Rankin House: Glastonbury. 
Beers House: New Haven. 
Hayden House: Essex. 
Stanton House: Clinton. 


PratEe XIX. Facing page 
Window: Warner House, Chester. 
Window: Pitkin House, East Hartford. 
Window: Welles-Shipman House, South 


Glastonbury. 
Window: Wheeler-Beecher House, 
Bethany. 
PratEe XX. Facing page 


Inside shutter: Brooks House, Stratford. 

Window: MacCurdy House, Lyme. 

Window: Deming House, Wethersfield. 

Window: Warham Williams House, 
Northford. 


7. 


80. 


82. 


84. 


86. 


92. 


96. 


Puiate XXI. 


Pruate XXII. 


Pirate XXIII. 


PiaTE XXIV. 


PLATE XXV. 


Prater AXVAG 


Facing page 100. 
Palladian window: Cowles House, 
Farmington. 
Linsley House: Stratford. 
Palladian window: Wheeler-Beecher 
House, Bethany. 
Gay House: Sufheld. 


Facing page 102. 
Front entrance: Humiston House, 
Hamden. 
Front entrance: Welles-Shipman House, 
South Glastonbury. 
Front entrance: Old Tavern, Rocky Hill. 
Entrance of an old house: Windsor. 


Facing page 108. 
Front entrance: Robinson House, 
Southington. 
Front entrance: Thompson House, 
Farmington. 
Front entrance: Old Inn, East Windsor. 
Front entrance: Griswold House, 


Guilford. 


Facing page 112. 
Front entrance: Rankin House, 
~ Glastonbury. 
Front entrance: Hill House, Glastonbury. 
Front entrance: Bassett House, Hamden. 
Front entrance: “The Parsonage,” 
Monroe. 


Facing page 114. 
Front entrance: Colonel Hitchcock 

House, Cheshire. 
Entrance of an old house: Redding Ridge. 
Entrance: Old Tavern, Straitsville. 


Front entrance: Major Talmage House, 
Guilford. 


Facing page 116. 

Carved capital: Whitman House, West 
Hartford. 

Front entrance: Colonel Lewis House, 
Essex. 

Front entrance: Chamberlain House, 
Guilford. 

Carved capital: Deming House, Farmington. 


List of Illustrations XV 


Pirate XXVII. Facing page 120. Pirate XXXII. Facing page 140. 
Entrance motive: Deming House, Litch- Panelling: Bidwell-Mix House, West 
field. Hartford. 
Entrance motive: Wheeler-Beecher Wainscot: Osborn House, Southport. 
Panelling: Lee House, Brookfield. 


Panelling: Welles-Shipman House, South 


House, Bethany. 
Entrance motive: Prudence Crandall 
House, Canterbury. Glastonbury. 


Entrance motive: Warner House, Chester. 


PuaTE XXXIV. Facing page 144. 


Pirate XXVIII. Facing page 124. Panelling: Burbank House, Suffield. 


PiLatTeE XXIX. 


PiatTE XXX. 


Pirate XXXI. 


Pirate XXXII. 


Front entrance: Robbins House, Rocky 
Hill. 

Window: Chaffee House, Windsor. 

Front entrance: General Cowles House, 
Farmington. 

Window: Robbins House, Rocky Hill. 


Side entrance: Wheeler-Beecher House, 
Bethany. 

Side entrance: Champion House, East 
Haddam. 

Side entrance: Grant House, East Windsor. 


Side entrance: Ely House, Ely’s Landing. 


Wheeler-Beecher House, Bethany. 
Prudence Crandall House: Canterbury. 
Bassett House: Hamden. 

Major Talmage House: Guilford. 


Hart House: Guilford. 

Bishop House: Guilford. 

Davenport House: Davenport Ridge. 
Stone House: Guilford. 


Inside door: Sherman Parsonage, Fair- 
field. 

Panelling: Miner House, Hamburg. 

Inside door: Burbank House, Suffield. 

Panelling: Hyde House, Norwich. 


PLATE XXXV. 
Facmg page 126. 


Pirate XXXVI. 


Facmg page 128. 


Pirate XXXVII. 
Facmg page 130. 


Facing page 134. Pirate XXXVIII. 


Panelling: Silas Deane House, Wethers- 
field. 

Panelling: Phelps Tavern, Simsbury. 

Panelling: Mack House, Hamburg. 


Facmg page 148. 
Mantel: Ely House, Ely’s Landing. 

Mantel: Griswold House, Blackhall. 

Mantel: Rankin House, Glastonbury. 

Mantel: Belden House, Wethersfield. 


Facing page 152. 
Mantel: Tuttle House, Guilford. 
Mantel from a demolished house: New 
Haven. 
Mantel: Bassett House, Hamden. 
Mantel: Wheeler-Beecher House, 
Bethany. 


Facing page 156. 
Mantel from a demolished house: New 

Haven. 
Mantel: Champion House, East Haddam. 
Mantel: Waid House, Lyme. 
Mantel: Barnabas Deane House, Hartford. 


Facing page 160. 

Mantel: Whitman House, Farmington. 

Mantel: Rankin House, Glastonbury. 

Mantel: Griswold House, Guilford. 

Mantel: Welles-Shipman House, South 
Glastonbury. 


XV1 


PraTE XXXIX. Facing page 164. 
Cupboard: Tuttle House, Guilford. 
Cupboard: Benton House, Guilford. 
Cupboard: Older Cowles House, Farm- 
ington. 


Cupboard: Talcott Arnold House, Rocky Hill. 


Prare Al) Facing page 166. 
Cupboard: Whittlesey House, Saybrook. 
Cupboard: MacCurdy House, Lyme. 
Cupboard: King House, Suffield. 

Cupboard: Beers House, Stratford. 


PrATeecL Facing page 170. 
Cupboard: Tyler House, East Haven. 
Cupboard: Welles-Shipman House, South 

Glastonbury. 
Cupboard: Robbins House, Rocky Hill. 
Cupboard: Comstock House, East Hart- 
ford. 


Prate XLII. _ Facing page 172. 
Cupboard in an old house: Simsbury. 
Cupboard in an old house: West 

Hartford. 
Cupboard: Beardsley House, Huntington. 
Cupboard: Judson House, Stratford. 


Prate XLIII. Facing page 174. 
Stairs: Brockway House, Hamburg. 
Stairs: Pardee House, Montowese. 
Stairs: Hill House, Glastonbury. 
Stairs: Older Williams House, Wethers- 
field. 


List of Illustrations 


Pirate XLIV. Facing page 
Stairs: Seward House, Guilford. 
Stairs: General Walker House, Stratford. 
Stairs: General Johnson House, Guilford. 
Stairs: Hyland-Wildman House, Guil- 
ford. 


Priate XLV. Facing page 
Stairs: Hyde House, Norwich. 
Stairs: Noyes House, Lyme. 
Stairs: Huntington House, Norwich. 
Stairs: Hart House, Saybrook. 


Pirate XLVI Facing page 
Stairs: Grant House, East Windsor. 
Stairs: Grant House, East Windsor. 
Stairs: Webb House, Wethersfield. 
Stairs: Silas Deane House, Wethersfield. 


Pirate XLVII. 
Old Tavern: Straitsville. 
General Cowles House: Farmington. 
Warner House: Chester. 
Talmadge House: Litchfield. 


Facing page 


Pratre XLVI Facing page 


Stairs: Deming House, Farmington, 

Bronze knocker: Chester. 

Knocker: “Historical House,”’ South 
Norwalk. 

Knocker: Champion House, East 
Haddam. 


Figures in Text 


Figure Page 

1. Plan: Thos. Lee House, East Lyme 6 

2. Plan: Norton House, Guilford 7 

3. Plan: Bushnell House, Saybrook 8 

4. Plan: Older Williams House, Wethersfield 8 

5. Central-chimney type of plan 8 
6. Cross section: Harrison-Linsley House, 

Branford 9 

7. Leanto framing: Tyler House, Branford 10 

8. Cross section: Acadian House, Guilford 10 


g. Plan: Hempstead House, New London Il 


Figure 

10. Plan: Thos. Lee House, East Lyme 

11. Plan: Graves House, Madison 

12. Cross section: Bidwell-Mix House, West 
Hartford 

13. Plan: Warham Williams House, North- 
ford 

14. First-floor plan: Rev. Dr. Huntington 
House, South Coventry 

15. Second-floor plan: Rev. Dr. Huntington 
House, South Coventry 


176. 


180. 


184. 


190. 


198. 


Page 
12 
12 


13 
14 
15 


15 


List of Illustrations 


Figure 


16 
17 


18. 
19. 
20. 


21. 


22. 


Central-hall type of plan 

Plan: Burnham-Marsh House, Wethers- 
field 

Plan: Pitkin House, East Hartford 

Plan: Raymond House, Rowayton 

Plan: Morris House, Morris Cove, New 
Haven 

Plan: Sheldon Woodbridge House, Hart- 
ford 

Cross section: Talcott Arnold House, 
Rocky Hill 


. Typical Framing Diagram 
. Sill framing: Norton House, Guilford 
. Sill framing: Moulthrop House, East 


Haven 


. Cross section: Older Bushnell House, Say- 


brook 


. Posts 

. Post framing: Tyler House, Branford 

. Post framing: House at Windsor 

. Post framing: Stilson House, Newtown; 


Lyon House, Greenwich 


. Post framing: Harrison-Linsley House, 


Branford 


. Post framing: Starr House, Guilford; 


Stevens House, West Haven 


. Chamfering: Caldwell House, Acadian 


House, Guilford 


. Framing detail: Bidwell-Mix House, West 


Hartford 


. Summer framing: Evarts Tavern, 


Northford 


. Cross section: Older Williams House, 


Wethersfield 


. Gable framing: Hall House, Cheshire 
. Leanto framing: Bradley House, East 


Haven 


. Leanto framing: Evarts Tavern, Northford 
. Typical first-floor framing plan 

. Typical second-floor framing plan 

. Framing details: Allen Smith House, Mil- 


ford 


. Attic framing plan: Moulthrop House, 


East Haven 


. Framing detail: Harrison-Linsley House, 


Branford 


Page 
16 


17 
18 
18 


19 
20 
22 
23 
24 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
28 
29 
29 
30 
31 


32 


33 
34 


35 
35 
36 
=k 
38 
39 


39 


XV 
Figure Page 
45. Leanto attic framing: Glebe House, 
Woodbury 40 
46. Plank frame: Hill House, Glastonbury 4I 
47. Framing detail: Evarts Tavern, Northford 41 
48. Typical framing diagram 42 
49. Rafter framing 44 
50. Roof framing: typical common rafter 
system 45 
51. Rafter framing 45 
52. Roof framing: typical purlin system 46 
53. Rafter footing 46 
54. Roof framing: Harrison-Linsley House, 
Branford 47 
55- Roof framing: Moulthrop House, East 
Haven 47 
56. Cross section: Moulthrop House, East 
Haven 48 
57. Leanto rafters: Moulthrop House, East 
Haven 49 
58. Roof framing: Bradley House, Branford 50 
59. Roof framing: Bidwell-Mix House, West 
Hartford; Older Williams House, 
Wethersfield 51 
60. Cross section: Evarts Tavern, Northford 52 
61. Cross section: Deacon Stephen Hotchkiss 
House, Cheshire 53 
62. Attic framing plan: Deacon Stephen 
Hotchkiss House, Cheshire 54 
63. Attic framing: Hall House, Cheshire 54 
64. Leanto framing: Hall House, Cheshire 55 
65. Cross section: Forbes-Barnes House, East 
Haven 56 
66. Leanto framing: Forbes-Barnes House, 
East Haven (ay 
67. Attic framing: Allen Smith House, Mil- 
ford 58 
68. Governor Treat House: Milford 59 
69. West end gable: Hempstead House, New 
London 59 
70. Roof framing: typical gambrel system 60 
71. Gambrel roof framing: Glebe House, 
Woodbury 61 
72. Clark House: Farmington 63 
73. Plan: English Cottage 65 
74. Chamfered girts: Hubbard House, Guil- 
ford 66 


XV111 


Figure 


75: 


76. 


co 
_ 


104. 


10S. 
106. 


Chamfered summer: Harrison-Linsley 
House, Branford 

Chamfered summers: Seymour-Steele 
House, Hartford; Lathrop House, 
Norwich; Dudley House, Guilford 


. Underpinning: Orton House, Farmington 
. Floor plans: Captain Johnson House, 


Hamburg 


. Hall fireplace: Buckingham House, Mil- 


ford 


. Chimney foundation: Butler House, West 


Hartford 


. Fireplace: Older Williams House, Weth- 


ersfield 


. Chimney: General Walker House, Strat- 


ford 


. Brick bond: “Elm Fort,” Suffield 


Brick filling: Tuttle House, West Hart- 
ford 


. Moulded brick: “Old South Middle,” 


New Haven 


. Riven oak clapboards 

. Oak clapboards: Graves House, Madison 
. Bevel-edged siding 

. Weather-boarding 

. Quoins: Eno House, Simsbury 

. Casement window: Thos. Lee House, 


East Lyme 


. Casement window: Shelley House, 


Madison 


. Casement sash: Guilford 

. Double-hung sash: Guilford 

. Typical double-hung window 

. Window: Moulthrop House, East Haven 
. Window: Belden House, Wethersfield 

. Window: Cheshire 

. Muntin 

100. 
LOL, 
102, 
103. 


Window: New Haven 

Window: Cornwell House, Cheshire 

Elevation showing fenestration 

Palladian window: Ely House, Ely’s 
Landing 

Palladian window: McEwen House, 
Stratford 

Window: Old Gay Manse, Suffield 

Outside shutters: Linsley House, Stratford 


Page 


67 


68 
71 


72 
74 


03 


76 


at 
19 


79 


80 
82 
83 
83 
84 
85 


87 


88 
89 
go 
gI 
Q2 
93 
94 
95 
95 
96 
97 


98 


99 
100 


IOI 


List of Illustrations 


Figure 


107. 
108. 


109. 


110. 
III. 
112. 


113. 


II4. 
rete: 


116. 
117. 
118. 
119. 
120. 
121. 
122) 
123) 
124. 
F25: 


126. 
127, 


128. 
129. 


130; 
131; 
132; 
133. 
134. 
ae 
136. 


137. 
138. 
139. 
140. 


Entrance doorway: Hull House, Shelton 
Front entrance: Philo Bishop House, 
Guilford 
Front entrance: 
Stratford 


Front entrance: 


William Judson House, 


Tyler House, Branford 
Stratford Inn 
Samuel Mather House, 


Front entrance: 

Front entrance: 
Lyme 

Front entrance: Trumbull House, North 
Haven 

Front entrance: 
Northford 

Front entrance: 
North Haven 


Comparison of orders 


Warham Williams House, 


Colonel Barker House, 


Front entrance: Hawley House, Monroe 

Front entrance: Cornwell House, Cheshire 

Detail of leaded glass 

Lead ornaments 

Lead ornament: Ely House, Ely’s Landing 

Lead eagle : 

Side entrance: Barber House, Simsbury 

Front cornice: Evarts Tavern, Northford 

Front cornice: Smith House, Milford; 
Linsley House, North Branford 

Front cornice: Older Williams House, 
Wethersfield 

Front cornice: Stephen Hotchkiss House, 
Cheshire 

Cross section: Allen Smith House, Milford 

Attic framing plan: Allen Smith House, 
Milford 

Cornice treatment 

Main cornice: New Haven 

Main cornice: Cornwell House, Cheshire 

Crown moulding gutter 

Wooden leader head 

Cornice rake 

Floor boards: Moulthrop House, East 
Haven 

Door: Graves House, Madison 

Door: Harrison-Linsley House, Branford 

Door: Loomis House, Windsor 

Door: Older Williams House, Weth- 
ersfield 


Page 
102 


103 


104 
105 
106 


107 
109 
I1I 


112 
115 
116 
118 
119 
119 
120 
120 
121 
122 


123 


124 


125 
126 


BE 
128 
129 
129 
130 
130 
131 


132 
133 
134 
135 


136 


List of Illustrations 


Figure 


I4l. 
142. 


143. 
144. 
145. 
146. 


147. 


148. 


149. 
150. 


ora k. 
152. 


154. 


Ww 


154. 
Ise. 
156. 
157. 


158. 
159. 
160. 
161. 
162. 


163. 


164. 


165. 
166. 


167. 
168. 
169. 
170. 
ae 


P72: 


Door: King House, Suffield 

Exterior door: Jabez Huntington House, 
Norwich 

Interior door evolution 

Interior door: Lyme 

Panel section 

Door: Older Williams House, Wethers- 
field 

Door casing: Moulthrop House, East 
Haven 

Interior trim detail 

Casing of girt 

Panelled summers: Noyes House, Old 
Lyme; Williams House, Northford 

Hall cornice: Deming House, Colchester 

Interior cornices: Sherman House, Yantic; 
Gay House, Suffield 

Interior plaster cornice: Patten House, 
Hartford 

Inside shutters: Chaffee House, Windsor 

Wainscot joint: Dudley House, Guilford 

Wainscot:. Strong House, East Windsor 

Wainscot joint: Thos. Lee House, East 
Lyme 

Wainscot: Linsley House, North Branford 

Wainscot: Backus House, Yantic 

Wainscot: Philo Bishop House, Guilford 

Baseboard: Rectory, Monroe 

Parlor panelling: Forbes or Barnes House, 
East Haven 

Panelling: Welles House, Lebanon 

Roll mouldings: Welles House, Lebanon; 
Benton House, Guilford; Jabez Hunt- 
ington House, Norwich; Jonathan 
Bulkley House, Fairfield 

Bolection moulding: Chaffee House, 
Windsor 

Comparison of mouldings: England and 
Connecticut 

Panelling: Taintor House, Colchester 

Panelling: Mather House, Lyme 

Panelling: Hayden House, Essex 

Panelling: Deming House, Wethersfield 

Panelling: Webb-Welles House, Weth- 
ersfield 

Panelling: Deming House, Colchester 


Page 


136 


137 
137 
138 
138 


139 


139 
140 
140 


14! 
142 


142 


143 
144 
145 
146 


146 
147 
147 
148 
148 


149 
150 


151 
152 


152 
153 
154 
155 
156 


157 
158 


Figure 


£74: 
174. 
a7 5. 
176. 
1973 
178. 
179. 
180. 


181. 
182. 
183. 
184. 


185. 


186, 
187. 
188. 
189. 


190. 


Igl. 
192. 
193. 
194. 
195. 
196. 
197. 
198. 


199. 


200. 


20 


_ 


202. 
203. 
204. 


205. 


206. 


207 


Panelling: Bliss House, Norwich 

Detail: panel section 

Detail of panelling 

Panelling: Champion House, East Haddam 

Mantel: Ruth Hart House, Guilford 

Mantel: Whitman House, Farmington 

Mantel: Pratt Tavern, Saybrook 

Corner cupboard: Harrison-Linsley House, 
Branford 

Corner cupboard: Tyler House, Branford 

Corner cupboard: Hayden House, Essex 

Stairs: Deming House, Farmington 

First-floor plan: Brockway House, Ham- 
burg 

First-floor plan: Samuel Webster House, 
East Windsor Hill 

Stairs: Captain Lee House, Guilford 

Detail: moulded string 

Stairs: Moulthrop House, East Haven 

Newel: Captain Robert Ely House, 
Saybrook 

Stair detail: Harrison-Linsley House, 
Branford 

Stairs: Russell House, Stratford 

Early and late balusters 

Stairs: George Griswold House, Guilford 

Handrail sections 

Detail of newel cap 

Newel: Bushnell House, Saybrook 

Newel: Benjamin House, Milford 

Newel pendants: Governor Trumbull 
House, Lebanon; General Walker 
House, Stratford; Coit House, Norwich 

Stair details: Huntington House, Norwich; 
Barnabas Deane House, Hartford 

Stair details: Barnabas Deane House, 


Hartford; Chaffee House, Windsor 


. Baluster: Dr. Richard Noyes House, Lyme 


Cellar stairs: Moulthrop House, East 
Haven 

Cellar stairs: Beckley House, Berlin 

Attic stairs: Pierpont House, New Haven 

Stair construction: Bushnell House, Say- 
brook 

Attic stairs: Hawley House, Monroe 

Cross section: Hawley House, Monroe 


X1X 
Page 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
165 
166 


168 
169 
171 
173 


174 


174 
175 
176 
177 


178 


178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
182 
183 
183 


183 


184 


184 
185 


185 
186 
186 


187 
188 
189 


XX | List of Illustrations 


Figure Page Figure Page 
208. Comparison of early and late mouldings 191 225. Door hinge: Trumbull 201 
209. Moulding section 193 226. Iron latch: Hadlyme Ferry 202 
210. Iron latches: Isle of Wight, England, and 227. Iron latch: Stratford 202 

Windsor, Conn. 194 228. Iron latch: West Hartford 202 
211. Brass latch: Windsor 195 229. Iron latch: Chaffee House, Windsor 202 
212. Iron strap hinges 196 230. Iron latch: Norwich 202 
213. “Snake hinge”: Guilford 196 231. Iron latch: Colchester 202 
214. Iron hinges: Wethersfield and Branford 196 232. Iron latch: Middle Haddam 203 
215. Iron hinge: Long Ridge 197 233. Iron latch: Shelton 204 
216. Iron hinge: North Lyme 197 234. Iron latch: Pitkin House, East Hartford 204 
217. Half-strap hinges 198 235. Wooden latch: Guilford 204 
218. Butterfly hinges: Guilford 198 236. Iron latch: Beckley House, Berlin 204 
219. Iron hinges: Guilford 198 237. Iron bolts: Norwich 205 
220. H and H-and-L hinges 198 238. Wooden lock: Norwich 205 
221. Iron hinges: Guilford, Stratford, and 239. Wrought-iron nails 205 

Windsor 199 240. Iron knocker: Fairfield 206 
222. Iron hinge: Hamden 199 241. Blind catch 206 
223. Cock’s head hinge: Beckley House, Berlin 200 242. Escutcheon: Backus House, Yantic 207 


224. Door hinges: Colchester 200 


FR IR IRR IR IR IR IRR IR IR IR IR IR FRR IR FR IIR II I II II III IIHR 


The Early Domestic Architecture of Conneéticut 





Chapter I. Introduction 


styles which have, at one time or another, achieved popularity, those memorable 

few which most creditably bear the test of time are precisely the ones which re- 
flect, faithfully and without distortion, the economic and social conditions out of which 
they sprang. An architectural style, if it is to be true, vital, and enduring, must clearly 
and candidly exhibit the spirit of the time in which it flourished—the spirit which is 
implicit in all the characteristic transactions of the time, and which may almost be defined 
as the sum of its manners, customs, and mode of living. 

The early domestic architecture of the American colonies, judged by this criterion, was 
unmistakably pure and virile. The most superficial examination of the period is enough to 
prove that it was productive of a “true” style in architecture. Its building is honest, straight- 
forward, devoid of affectation and sham. The early Colonial houses were true in two 
respects, both of crucial importance. First, they expressed with entire simplicity and di- 
rectness the conditions which produced them. Secondly, and hardly less important, their 
implication was always intensely intimate, domestic. They were true to their milieu; and 
they were equally true to their purpose. 

The phase of the Colonial period or style which had its inception in Connecticut dis- 
played a number of striking peculiarities, to be presented and analyzed, by text and illustra- 
tion, in the subsequent chapters of this book. But, speaking broadly and non-technically, 
the early Connecticut houses shared the fundamental characteristics of contemporaneous 
work in the other New England colonies. They were extremely simple, and their sim- 
plicity was the natural result of a frank and forthright solution of problems which were 
intrinsically anything but complex. The product of the period, despite its plain utility and 
simplicity—or rather, perhaps, because of these very qualities,—never missed achieving 
the fine Colonial dignity—a rugged and vigorous integrity due in large measure to what 
may almost be called the crudity of the construction. 

Consciously or unconsciously, man looks with satisfaction upon that which is substan- 
tially and enduringly built. It is primarily, or at least largely, this innate sense of sheer 
structural value which makes us admire the Pyramids, the temples of Greece, the mighty 
cathedrals of the thirteenth century. The same instinct infallibly communicates to every 
observer, even the most casual, the bluff and rugged strength of our old houses; and he 
who knows these ancient dwellings more intimately, perhaps through having been fortunate 


Oo is the fundamental principle of architecture. Of the many architectural 


2 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


enough to live in one of them, is keenly and sensitively responsive to the security, the 
abundance of strength, which they embody. Their mighty frames of oaken timbers— 
timbers which measure sixteen and even eighteen inches—have stood unshaken for two 
centuries or more. By comparison the frame house of to-day, built as it is of 2-by-4 
studs which must be sheathed with inch boards to impart to the framework the practicable 
modicum of rigidity, seems pathetically, not to say ludicrously, frail. He who warms as 
he ought to the spirit of these old houses must revel in the well-nigh barbaric massiveness 
of their framing. 

It is in this single respect, as much as in any, that the staunch Colonial houses essen- 
tialize the epoch which created them. During the perilous and insecure times immediately 
after the founding of the Connecticut colony, when the colonists, hewing their homes out 
of the primeval forest, were never free from the menace of wolf, famine, or lurking 
Indian, there was neither time for anything non-essential nor place for anything flimsy 
and impermanent. The staunch houses which they built unconsciously expressed these 
circumstances in every timber of their tremendous frames. Those of their dwellings which, 
escaping the ravages of neglect, abuse, and intentional destruction, have lasted until now, 
are a precious heritage. More than any other one thing which we possess, they constitute 
a momentous and vital link with an epoch to which we owe incalculably much and with a 
people whose function in our national history nothing can trivialize. 

The early Connecticut house is of moment alike to the architect, the antiquarian, and 
the historian. What I propose to consider here is its specific claim upon the architect and 
the student of architecture. It goes almost without saying that, to either of these, the 
natural approach to such a subject is from the historical angle, with reference primarily to 
the interrelation of various styles, the transition from one architectural period to another. 

Granted this point of view, it is impossible for an architect or a competent student of 
architecture to overlook a certain analogy between early domestic architecture in Con- 
necticut and contemporaneous work of the same general scope in England. This analogy 
is, in fact, precisely what one would anticipate, reasoning from the historical and social 
conditions out of which the early work grew. Let us examine in detail, first, the most im- 
portant of these historical conditions, and then, briefly, one of the more obvious similarities 
between Colonial domestic architecture and English. 

To begin with, Connecticut was settled mainly by colonists of English birth, who, mak- 
ing their way down the Connecticut River Valley or coming by ship from Massachusetts, 
founded the early settlements of Hartford, Wethersfield, and Windsor. The settlers of 
the shore towns—New London, Saybrook, Guilford, New Haven, Milford, Stratford— 
were likewise English. Now, an Englishman betrays few characteristics more accentuated 
than his conservatism, his innate love of traditional usages. It is but natural that these first 
settlers should have brought with them, among other things, their building traditions. 
And even more important, because more fundamental, they brought their traditions and 
customs of daily living, which would of course exert the most powerful influence on their 
building. Naturally, such ideas and manners as were brought to these shores did not per- 


Introduction 3 


sist without modification. They were gradually adapted to local exigencies and tempered 
by the new set of conditions. But, with whatever superficial modifications, the core of the 
early settlers’ life remained English; and so did the fundamentals of their architecture. 

Among the colonists were many skilled craftsmen who had served their apprenticeships 
and received their early training in England. Among the trades mentioned in the early 
Court Records of the New Haven Colony we find the following: sawyers, carpenters, 
“joyners,” thatchers, brickmakers, plasterers, “ryvers of clapboards, shingles and lathes,” 
“‘naylers,” and “massons.” Owing to the system in vogue at the time, nearly every man 
who did not till the soil or engage in some branch of commerce had a trade, and the artisans 
of various sorts were highly specialized and skillfully trained, thanks largely to the 
prevalent custom of serving out long apprenticeships. This fact accounts largely for the 
skill with which so much of the early work was done, and also for the surprising similarity 
of the ways in which like conditions were met by groups of men working in different 
localities. When trained workmen of a conservative stamp are confronted by a given 
problem, it is quite to be expected that they will solve it and execute their solution in ac- 
cordance with their early training—that is, in the way to which they are most accustomed. 
Coming as they did from various parts of England, different groups of craftsmen brought 
the usages and traditions peculiar to the regions from which they came; only, instead of 
making a literal application, here in Connecticut, of their traditionary habits of workman- 
ship, they split up or subdivided this body of usage into local mannerisms—a logical out- 
come of meeting new and untried conditions. But such local types as local exigencies pro- 
duced were, broadly speaking, very much alike, despite the stamp of localism and the 
indelible imprint of the builder’s individuality. 

When we examine the work of these first builders for the more obvious of the proofs 
that they were indeed working in an English idiom, we find it in the universal and per- 
sistent use of a single material for framing. That material, of course, was oak. No archi- 
tectural usage could be more strongly marked with the finger of tradition. That the 
colonists, with abundance of other woods, both hard and soft, at their disposal, should have 
chosen oak, means simply that they elected to use the one material with the working of 
which they were already most familiar, and the physical properties of which they most 
perfectly understood. On this basis, it is easy enough to comprehend the almost invariable 
use of oak, not only for a framing material, but also for exterior covering, floors, and so 
on. Oak as a framing material continued in popularity for many years; indeed, it can 
safely be said that it was never outgrown during the Colonial period, and that only after 
1800 was it superseded for structural purposes by white pine and other soft woods—and 
this, mark, despite the difficulty of working, or even handling, so heavy and obdurate a 
material with the limited tools and appliances available to the early builders. No set of 
facts could more perfectly express the inherent traditionalism of the English, or serve to 
show more explicitly the continuity between the domestic architecture of Old England 


and that of New England. 
It remains for us to note in rough outline how English seventeenth-century houses were 


4 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


built. We disregard in this connection, of course, the larger and more pretentious manor 
houses. The average small English home was a simple structure of stone, “cob,” or half- 
timbered work. A house of half-timbered construction consisted of a combination of ex- 
posed oak framework and either “cob” or brick filling between the timbers. “Cob” was a 
mixture of clay and chopped straw, containing sometimes a percentage of lime. This half- 
timber style of construction was a very old one in England; the Old English word for 
build is zimbran. In Yorkshire, houses of this type were designated as “reared” houses, 
in distinction from those of stone. During the reign of Henry VIII a statute was enacted 
which made it a felony to engage in the “secret burnyng of frames of tymber prepared and 
made by the owners thereof, redy to be sett up, and edified for houses.” Judging by the 
extant English examples of the period now under consideration, a large proportion of the 
smaller houses were of this type. 

It appears, then, that the transplanted English craftsmen—especially those who came 
from the forested districts of England—on finding themselves confronted with the task 
of building a house where there was an abundance of oak and clay at hand, would naturally 
have undertaken the construction of a dwelling with these materials. But houses of this 
type, though well able to endure the milder climate of England, with its more frequent 
but gentler rains, which for the most part descend vertically, could not withstand the more 
violent and driving storms peculiar to our continent. Walls of cob—clay and straw walls— 
are but ill suited to withstand the assaults of our sort of weather; so that if, as is probable, 
the colonists did at first attempt this type of construction, they must perforce have promptly 
abandoned it. But it is of significance that, although a protective covering of wood in the 
form of oak clapboards took the place of the cob filling of the English panels between 
the timbers, the structural framework of oak remained as before. 

In many other ways, too, the influence of the mother country is to be seen reflected in 
the early Connecticut houses. Examples are the comparatively low height of story; the 
close proximity of the first floor to the ground; the steepness of pitch of the early roofs; 
and the large size of the chimney stack in relation to the general plan—all points to be 
taken up in detail in succeeding chapters. 

In spite, however, of this distinct reflection of English custom, our early houses had 
decided character and individuality of their own. It would be an egregious blunder to give 
the impression that the Connecticut house of this period was simply a transplanted or re- 
produced English house. In reality the two merely possessed certain fundamental charac- 
teristics in common. The early Connecticut house, then, was a new creation, wherein the 
use of materials and the manner of construction were largely the result of Old World 
tradition, modified to meet an entirely new and different set of conditions. 


PRESSE SG Se ER ENG ERD eae Mp Sea MeCN Mpa MSC Me 


Chapter II. The House Plan and Its Development 


tradition played in the use of materials and the general mode of construction of the 

early Connecticut house. It is the purpose of this chapter to consider the influence of 
the English house plan of the corresponding period, and to trace, from its earliest form, 
the development of the house plan in Connecticut through various logical stages to its 
culmination in an ultimate type. 

The average small English house of that time was a simple and unpretentious affair of 
but a few rooms, the first floor of which was close to or level with the ground itself— 
for in most instances there was no cellar. The use of stoves was rare; and since the open 
fireplace was depended upon for cooking purposes as well as for heat, the hearth was the 
center of domestic life. As a matter of course, the chimney stacks were large and massive, 
in order to accommodate the generous proportions of the fireplaces. To keep the widely 
projecting eaves of thatch as near the ground as possible, as a form of protection to the 
walls of cob, the stories were kept low in height. This low ceiling height was ascribable, 
no doubt, to the kind of intimacy and domestic coziness thus obtained, as well as to the 
added advantage of greater warmth in cold weather. 

We find the influence of these massive chimney stacks reflected in Connecticut. Until 
a late date the chimneys were of huge proportions, apparently for no direct reason except 
that of tradition. In considering the various types of house plans, we shall see how im- 
portant a rdle the chimney stack played in their development. The effect of the low Eng- 
lish story is noteworthy as well: the ceiling heights of our earliest houses are invariably 
low, increasing, however, as time goes on and the old influence becomes less strong. In 
these, as in more general details, we find specific confirmation of the continuity between the 
old work of the mother country and the new on American shores. 

The first shelters erected by the colonists, we gather from old accounts and traditions, 
were very primitive and merely temporary. That they should be, was inevitable in the 
existing conditions: in the midst of an unbroken wilderness, land had to be cleared and 
cultivated, the attacks of hostile Indians guarded against, and the scarcity of labor and 
tools offset. All these factors discouraged the erection of anything but the simplest, crudest, 
and most hasty structures. Lambert, in his History of the Colony of New Haven, says: 
“The first settlements in Connecticut were commenced in 1635, by Massachusetts people. 
The people from Watertown took up a fine tract of natural meadow . . . which was 
named Wethersfield, after a town of that name in England. Here a few Watertown men, 
the year before, erected two or three huts and remained during the winter.” At New 
Haven the first dwellings were but little better than earth cellars, built into the sides of 
banks and roofed with sods. Eaton and his followers had sailed from Massachusetts in 


|: was the task of the preceding chapter to establish the importance of the part which 


6 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


August, 1637, and there had been no time for the erection of anything better before 
cold weather. 
There is a vestige of tradition to the effect that some of the settlers of Hartford and 
the towns near by brought with them from Massachusetts the prepared timbers for their 
homes, ready for erection. There is evidence that in 1633 the Plymouth Colony fitted 
out a “great new bark,” in the hold of which was stowed away the completed frame of a 
house, with “boards to cover and 
finish it.” The ship was brought to 
anchor in the Connecticut River and a 
landing made just below the mouth of 
® the Farmington River, on September 
26, 1633. It was at this place that the 
house was quickly “clapt up.” 
At first, and before the advent of 
the framed house, log cabins were evi- 
‘First Floor PLady dently not uncommon. Atwater, in 
RR col Ape abee writing of the first settlers who came 
to Connecticut, in his History of New 
Haven Colony, states: “For the win- 
ter they usually built huts, as they 
called them, similar to the modern 
log-cabins in the forests of the West, 
though in some instances, if not in 
most, they were roofed, after the 
English fashion, with thatch.” The 
Norton house in the town of Guilford 
(circa 1690) is said to have been con- 
» TUR AAT Oo RET MAaA os structed after the erection of a log 
+f ClO Ape teoale bre cabin which stood some hundred feet 
J Hoy Lib Noreen ere to the east, and in which the workmen 
lived while the present house was be- 
Ficure I. ing built. The Taintor house in Col- 
chester (1703) is the third house to 
occupy the spot where it now stands, the first one, it is asserted by descendants of the 
original settler, having been a log cabin. But, as I have stated, these first shelters were 
only temporary, for the frame house made its appearance early in the history of the 
Connecticut colony. According to old records, George Fenwick had a “faire house” at 
Saybrook as early as 1641, which house was “well fortified.” 
After the brief log-cabin period appeared the first structures which may be truly called 
houses; and from evidence which exists to-day it is probable that at first they were of one- 
room plan, a story and a half or two stories in height, with the chimney stack at one end. 








BRADLEY 





Bra reel: 





The House Plan and Its Development 7 


The Thomas Lee house in East Lyme, 


which was begun in 1664, is, in its first stage, 


a perfect illustration of this type of plan. From A, Figure 1, it will be seen that the 
plan of this house was originally that of a single room, facing south, with a great stone 


chimney at the western end. It is probable 
that this chimney showed on the outside of 
the house for its entire height, as it does in 
the Norton house in Guilford to-day. 
(Plate I.) The stairs to the second floor 
were, at this stage, in the southwest corner, 
in front of the chimney stack. This plan of 
the Lee house in its first stage may be re- 
garded as typical of the first or one-room 
period. 

The Norton house in the town of Guil- 
ford (circa 1690), though essentially a 
house of one-room plan, indicates, by rea- 
son of its lean-to room at the rear, aslightly 
later development. (Figure 2.) Here, as in 
the Lee house originally, a tremendous 
stone chimney, exposed on the exterior, 
forms the entire west wall of the first 
story; and although the stairs are not in 





le ieee 





Waves pe Ve he Le OtO eR ys PVA CALs 


Pree ANSOURTEOON TS HAOLV EU) Leet 
VAG IVIL OF. OF ReaD ae 


FIGURE 2. 


front of the chimney, there is a space for them there. This house faces south, as did the 


Lee house originally. 


A house of one-room plan, however, was but ill suited to the domestic usages of any 
except the smallest of families, living in the simplest possible manner; and additional space 
soon became necessary. It was obtained simply by adding another room, or unit of construc- 


tion, on the opposite side of the chim- 
ney, which thus became enclosed. This 
change actually took place in the Lee 
house about 1690; so that the house 
then became of two-room plan, with a 
central chimney, in front of which- was 
the “porch,” containing the stairs to the 
second floor. (See B, Figure 1.) The 
framing of this second room is quite 
independent of the original hall, and, 
when built, was simply butted up against 
the original structure. It is, in fact, 
merely that of a single room; whereas 
that of the hall is the framing of a com- 





BVSHAELL HOVSE-SAY BROOK 


FIGURE 3. 


8 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 





Sel Rela aL OvOuRm Pecan Any 


PF OLPER WILLE AM OC) HOVE. bx aNibe HER Eby ae 


FIGuRE 4. 


plete one-room house, inasmuch as it has 
a space for the stack, which the later room 
has not. 

The house of two-room plan—it soon 
became established as a type—forms the 
second stage in the development of the 
Connecticut house plan. The older Bush- 
nell house near Saybrook (1678-1679) and 
the older Williams house in Wethersfield 
(circa 1680), Figures 3 and 4, furnish us 
with typical examples of the period. It will 
be seen that in each the chimney occupies its 
central position behind the stair porch. Once 


arrived at, this arrangement became firmly fixed,and the chimney stack became the center or 
pivotal point about which the plan revolved in its development. In both the older Bushnell 
and the older Williams houses a flight of steps leads down to the cellar from the hall. In 
each it is placed in front of the chimney and beneath the stairs to the second floor. In the 
Bushnell house the steps are of stone, enclosed on either side by masonry walls. Such an 
arrangement is always indicative of very early work. In both of these houses the cellar 
extends beneath only one room. The second-floor plan is, of course, identical with that 


KttPiag Roon| \M 
Fi oy See 


| ! 


TCA PA Cur he: 
S CLAVE T OP Ce aL ey 


FIGuRE 5. 





LCR chal eee LOL On Ra mheLeAgAns 


Terie 


of the first or ground floor. 

To meet the constantly increas- 
ing demand for more room after 
the two-room plan had become 
firmly established as a type, the 
simple expedient of adding a 
lean-to across the rear of the 
house was resorted to; which ad- 
dition resulted in the provision 
of three additional rooms on the 
first floor and a large attic on the 
second. (Figure 5.) This was 
accomplished by continuing the 
main house roof in back of the 
ridge down to the ceiling level 
of the first floor. (Figure 6.) 
The rafters of the new lean-to 
roof were usually a separate set 
from those of the main house 
roof, and were framed at their 
upper ends into the original rear 


- 
< 
x 
os 
al 

ce) 


The House Plan and Its Development 9 


plate of the house. (Figure 7.) The pitch of the lean-to roof was generally the same as that 
of the old roof above it. When, as in many instances, there is a slight variation in the roof 
angle, the discrepancy is a clear indication of subsequently added work. (Figure 8.) The 
lean-to evidently came into use very early in the days of the colony, for the New Haven 
Court Records for 1649 mention the “leantoe of Robert Parson’s house.” 





eCuR Oper ie lecie le Oehar 


S HARRIVOA-LINSLLY Hovyt ~BRAAFORT 4 


Ficure 6. 


Houses of the added lean-to type are of very common occurrence; in fact, this is one 
of the most typical forms of the early Connecticut house. The Tyler house, near Bran- 
ford (circa 1710), the Acadian house in Guilford (1670), and the Harrison-Linsley 
house in Branford (1690) all have lean-to additions. (Figures 6 and 8.) Originally 
each was of the two-room type of plan. An inspection of the lean-to attic in houses 
of this type generally furnishes the investigator with sufficient architectural evidence 
to decide conclusively whether or not the lean-to is a later addition or an integral 


LANG ee °g PUNO Ly 
a ‘ 1hy 
WO} eta Fae G5 ieee 
Vda 


Cee ap \ 
1ivV% 2/6 mee. 
Ey, 
yy, RIX YL oinaad 





Ae AUN 


f AYO 
VV 
ie 


ses ees 
ee 5 ee 
ss ke 
ae, 
é 4 yi q 


Lal 





xo ; 
{T1140 
W 


“ 


~ 


The House Plan and Its Development II 


part of the house itself. The existence of a separate set of roof rafters extending from 
the rear plate of the main house down to the rear plate of the lean-to does not always” 
necessarily indicate that the rear part is of later date; nor does a difference in level between 
the floors of the front rooms and of the lean-to attic. The existence of clapboards, how- 
ever, on the outside of the rear walls of the front rooms, beneath the lean-to roof, is in- 
controvertible proof that the rear portion of the house is a built-on addition. Old weathered 
clapboards are still in place on parts of the original rear walls of all three of the just- 
mentioned houses. In each they are of oak, riven out, and applied directly to the studs. 
Those in the lean-to attic of the Acadian house still bear traces of the original red paint 
with which they were covered. 


wm OR I1Ginxat Hovst- 
o—_-Latin Avpitiod: 


cota Liaato Avpitiod- 





SHEEN GEE tka ee HOV ek “oALE Wie L OLN V OoNA TS 


FIGuRE 9. 


Both the Hempstead house in New London (1643) and the Lee house, which has been 
discussed, have lean-to additions. From the first-floor plan of the Hempstead house, which 
is shown in Figure 9, it will be seen that it was, like the Lee house, originally of one-room 
plan. Later on another room was added on the opposite side of the chimney, which thus 
became enclosed; and finally a lean-to was built across the entire rear of the house. There- 
fore this house, as it exists to-day, embodies three different stages in the growth of the 
house plan. The first-floor plan of the Lee house, as it now stands, is shown in Figure 10. 
After its plan had arrived at the two-room stage, as shown by B, Figure 1, the house 
underwent a great change. Up to that time it had faced the south; but, owing to the con- 
struction of a new road about a hundred feet to the north, what had formerly been the 
rear became the front, and a lean-to was built across the south side. This modification of 
course necessitated a reconstruction of the chimney in the space formerly devoted to the 
stairs; whereupon the resulting arrangement became what it is to-day. The lean-to of this 
house, it will be noted, is built across what was originally the front. 

The Lee and the Hempstead are two of the most valuable early houses in Connecticut; 
for each dates back to the seventeenth century, and each embodies architectural evidence 


12 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


sufficient to mark, step by step, the growth of the houses from the one-room plan to their 


ultimate and present form. 


The Graves house in Madison (1675), which is also of the added lean-to type, displays 
in its first-floor plan (Figure 11) an unusual lack of symmetry, although the layout is 
typical. Generally the variation in size between the two front rooms is very small, if it 





STHOY LEC HOS DA Set ee 
UB eRe Ni Teorey hi TPS ib o 
oi pee we JOR ES 


FIGURE IO. 





SA GRAVES OUST ad ey Oa 


FIGuRE II. 


exists at all. The period repre- 
sented by such houses as these of 
the added lean-to type consti- 
tutes the third stage in the de- 
velopment which is here being 
traced. 

By this period a new genera- 
tion had begun to take the place 
of the original settlers; times 
were rapidly becoming prosper- 
ous and general conditions much 
more secure. There was no 
longer the urgent necessity to 
clear land and guard against 
Indian attacks. Families had in- 
creased in size and wealth, and 
it was becoming possible to de- 
vote much more attention to the 
physical home. 

The lean-to, at first merely an 
addition, presently became an in- 
tegral part of the construction. 
The additional space originally 
gained had become, owing to 
changes in the mode of living, a 
sheer necessity. This phase may 
be regarded as the fourth in the 
development of the house plan. 

The next development, which 
ushers in the fifth period, was ac- 
complished by building the house 
of two full stories throughout, 
letting the first-floor plan remain 
that of the lean-to house. The 
most striking external feature of 
this change is the disappearance 


‘TJ dlvtTZd 


ANAT LSVY—dsnNOoY AaT HOIMNGAaL)—aAsSNoHY SNOA’T 





























The House Plan and Its Development ie 


of the long lean-to roof, with its fine lines sweeping from the ridge nearly to the ground. 
(Figure 12.) However, the utilitarian advantage of the change was great: the formerly 


useless attic-like space of the lean-to on the second floor gave way to three additional rooms 
of full head-room. 







NO COMAOA RATER 


Perxcipan 
RAFTER 











Werrrs- 2% 4 


VE GIRLOU RS a Lett © As” 
Pe yYWELL-MIY HOVSE-WEST NARTIFORY SF 


FIGURE 12. 


The plan of the second floor, like that of the first, became a layout of five rooms— 
the two large front chambers, a “kitchen chamber” behind the chimney and above the 
kitchen, and smaller rooms on either side of it, corresponding to the buttery and the 
bedroom of the ground floor. (Figure 15.) 

The first-floor plan of the Warham Williams house in Northford (1750), shown in 
Figure 13, is a typical illustration of the layout of this period. The plan of the second 
floor repeats that of the first, so that the house is one of ten rooms. On the first floor we 


14 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


find, as in the lean-to type, two large front rooms, one of which is the parlor, the other 
being variously known as the living room, hall, or keeping room. The kitchen is cen- 
trally located, behind the great chimney; on the north side of it are back stairs to the 
second floor, and a small pantry or buttery, and on the south or warmer side is a bed- 
room. The sleeping rooms of the second floor were always designated as “chambers,” and 
corresponded in name with the rooms beneath them; as, “hall-chamber,” “parlor-cham- 
ber.” The only sleeping room ever referred to as a “bedroom” was that on the first floor, 
which was always placed on the side of the house with the warmest exposure. In many 
instances this room has direct 
communication with the front 
room adjoining it. 

The Trumbull house in North 
Haven (1761) embodies this 
type of plan, as does the Rev. 
Dr. Huntington house in the 
town of South Coventry (1763). 
The first-floor plan of the latter 
house is shown in Figure 14. Its 
ell is in reality a separately 
framed house, for it is of earlier 
date than the main part and was 
probably moved to its present 
location when the main house 
was built. (Figure 15.) 

SER Tere ee Pee Up to about the middle of the 

eighteenth century, when this pe- 

riod drew to its close, utility had 

FIGuRE 13. been the determining influence 

upon each stage in the evolution 

of the house plan. This powerful and hitherto decisive factor now gave way to other in- 

fluences, itself becoming of secondary consideration. Economy and intimacy of arrangement 

were superseded by spaciousness and formality; and massiveness of construction was no 

longer the rule. Rather, massiveness was replaced by elegance and refinement of detail— 
qualities which reached their culmination at the close of the Adam period. 

As may be seen from the accompanying plans, the chimney had hitherto been the central 
feature, and, from its central position behind the stair porch, had not only dominated, 
but actually governed the plan. In the plan arrangement there now began a change which 
must be regarded as of extreme significance. This was the introduction of the central 
hallway, extending from the front to the rear of the house, with an outside door at either 
end, and the consequent division of the chimney into two parts. A typical layout of the 
period is shown in Figure 16. It will be seen that the new arrangement really consisted 





JS WARHWAM WILLIAMS Hovst-Nortitory JS 


ST aun 
$1 qunoly “YI TUN] 


Lf kMLWINOD sf 1LA0F"8 WOO NaI Ment He asa ALY He 4 ra) - NA f AY 
aWVtd 40074 4VOITf 4 Lo of” iJA st yYOLowtt H A a ve 


Nea lee ee romer yi sy Sheree S| 





16 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


of two houses of two-room plan, turned at right angles to their former positions and 
separated by a hallway which was one-half bay in width. 

The plan of the Burnham-Marsh house, Wethersfield (now demolished), which was 
originally built about 1740, is shown in Figure 17. Its primary interest lies in the fact that 
it clearly shows an attempt to convert a house of central-chimney type into one of central- 
hall type. This was done by the addition of a new part at one end, which contained the 
second chimney. This plan contains the germ which eventually developed into a fixed type. 
Generally speaking, the change 
was simply the product of a 
search for a more open formation 
of plan and for a more spacious 
‘ arrangement. As a result of it, 
| -Pinrac porns | ae . if the house plan became more 

| I] balanced and formal. This bal- 
ance or formality, so obtained, 
constitutes the sixth or final stage 
of the development of the house 
plan in Connecticut. By the third 
quarter of the eighteenth cen- 
tury, this new plan arrangement 
had become fairly well fixed, and 
it is representative of the ma- 
jority of the houses built from 
that time onward. 

In certain remote regions, of 
course, the earlier types persisted 
until a later time. This persist- 
© Ty PUG AlLSeT ion Um Tl 10.0 eh inane ence can be asserted of any archi- 
tectural period. Throughout the 
history of plan development, no 

Figure 16. precise date can be set for the 

changes which took place. An 

overlapping of periods was inevitable, and quite to be expected. The changes produced were 
gradual ones, and they were influenccd very strongly by the varying degrees of conservatism 
of different localities. Broadly speaking, however, it may be said that the central-chimney 
plan of two rooms held sway up to about the last quarter of the seventeenth century. During 
this period the lean-to first made its appearance. From thence onward to 1700 or thereabout 
the principal changes were the disappearance of the framed overhang, or its reduction to a 
few inches, and the incorporation of the lean-to, as an integral form of construction, into the 
house fabric. The period from 1700 to about the middle of the eighteenth century is marked 
by the raising of the lean-to so that the house becomes one of two full stories throughout. 


“PA el OF as 


| 
ve 





J CcESANTERS ASL OMIA Db eae ee ce 


The House Plan and Its Development 17 


The central-hall arrangement of plan did not make its appearance until about 1750, between 
which time and the Revolutionary period, as I have stated, it became fixed as a type. 

One important point should be noted in connection with the central-hall house plan: 
namely, that the first-floor scheme still continues to be the dominating one, determining 
the arrangement of the floor above it, as is always the fact with the central-chimney house. 
This dominance of the first floor is probably due in large measure to the fact that the 
partitions, which were thin and non-bearing, were mainly governed in their positions by 
the girts or other major units of construction with which they coincided. 

It should be noted as well that, as the chimney became secondary to the central hall in 
importance and the stairs came 
into greater prominence, the 
stairs practically did not vary in 
proportion from those which oc- 
cupied a place in front of the 
central chimney. For many years 
the size of the stairs in relation to 
the general plan had been fairly 
well established. Of course, in 

the general expansion of plan the 
_ stairs were eventually increased 
to more generous proportions; 
but this evolution did not occur 








Orr Door Aiw Door 


until fairly late. 
wes OR IGIAAL Wort wzz~7™™”. %Avysep WORK 
Many houses of the central- rmcca WORE Rimoves 
hall or two-chimney plan have a Gene Teak WoO Raita eA ie 


rear ell, a story orastoryanda yy bByrxHam-MatRyun HOYvEs WLEIHERYTILIG VY 
half in height, communicating 


with one of the rear rooms of 
the main house. The Pitkin house 
in East Hartford (1740-1750) is an example. (Figure 18.) In some instances such rear 
ells were later additions, built to accommodate the kitchen and its dependencies, in or- 
der that the original kitchen of the house proper might be used as a dining room. It ap- 
pears, though, both from old family records and from much purely architectural evi- 
dence, that the rear ell is very often the older structure, in some cases moved to its position 
behind the main house, in others standing upon its original foundations and occupied as a 
dwelling during the construction of the main house. The rear ell of the Webb-Welles 
house in Wethersfield (1751), for instance, is of considerably earlier date than the main 
house itself. 

The central-hall plan, with minor variations, held sway throughout the Revolutionary 
period, up to the beginning of the Greek Revival period of 1830. Until that time, it was 
almost invariably the custom to build the house with its main roof ridge parallel to the 


FIGURE 17. 


‘61 AUN "QI AUN] 
JS VOLAVMOGD-T TA ORS wey a¥V1d O01] ifaiys 


WV Po 70 Os tala eerie 


Se €: 








eel TT 








Wane: 
Ell} 


AAYVOLLAVY LS VY, 
Fol FLOR VINLId yr] 





-1/A0Kx 
MivioLy ay itd 

*fyoisiady AILvVy u —— “‘ATAOWTY 
AYOM THMIDIAO C==.I 


“-TSAOK TYNIDIACG FIAVEOCRX se 
Sao Ty M1919 > me 


The House Plan and Its Development 19 


street or road. A characteristic of the Greek Revival period seems to be the placing of the 
house at right angles to its former position, with its gable end fronting on the street. 
What had formerly been the front now became the side; and this change necessitated a 
rearrangement of the interior and, consequently, a new plan. 


wus OR 1G1N AL Hovyt- 








LOA he RASS ETO UOU AL Salts 


WN Cee Rel fen HHT ORN SL of 
wm Oskat. fof 1G LO Voie N Ew HAY EA 


ae pete nye Cl LE OPOr Rs PL. Ae Ae 


FIGURE 20. 


We have now followed the steady growth of the house plan from a simple affair of a 
single room, through a series of regular developments—each one the logical result of 
the demands of new conditions, new ways of living—on to an ultimate expression in the 
comparatively spacious and stately plan of central-hall type; a plan so perfected and so 
admirably adapted to our needs and usages of to-day that, for the average house of eco- 
nomical layout, it would be difficult to better it. 


20 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


In addition to the houses of regular plan formation, such as those which have been 
discussed, and which constitute the great majority, there exist as well occasional houses of 
eccentric or irregular plan, which do not come under any fixed classification. Of sporadic 
occurrence, they are exceptions rather than the rule. Frame houses, with masonry ends 
built entirely of brick or stone, were never common, and but few examples of such con- 
struction remain to-day. From the plan of the Morris house at Morris Cove, New Haven, 
shown in Figure 20, it may be seen that the original house, built in 1670, was constructed 
with massive stone ends, into which the fireplaces were built. The first-floor plan of the 


29-1072 - 





v Pip RS tT Voi Rapala aes 


SSHELVOR WOOTBRIDGE Hovvyt-Hartroreply 


FIGURE 21. 


Sheldon Woodbridge house, built 1715, which once stood on Governor Street in Hartford, 
is shown in Figure 21. The plan arrangement is similar to that of the Morris house, but 
the masonry ends were constructed of brick. The Timothy Strong house (circa 1753), which 
once stood in Windsor, and which is illustrated in Plate IV, was also a house of this 
type. The small story-and-a-half house shown in Plate IV, which stands on the Boston 
Post Road near Madison, also falls under this classification of masonry-ended frame 
houses. As in the three foregoing examples, the fireplaces are built into the end walls. 
Houses of central-hall plan which are built entirely of brick, such as the Chaffee house 
in Windsor (1776), and the Joel Bradley house in North Haven (1759), usually exhibit 
end chimneys, the fireplaces occurring, of course, in the end walls. (Plates I and XIII.) 














WarRHAM WILLIAMS HousE—NorRTHFORD 


TRUMBULL HousE—NortH Haven 





Prrxin Hovuse—East HartFrorp 


HarrIsON-LINSLEY HousE—BRANFORD 


Pruate ITI. 


OL et) yl eee Oe en ee ee tr Oe lee 





PRES DE ESSE Nt HS OI MRI EAN MSIE RIN MEN ED 


Chapter III. ‘The House Frame and Its Constru@tion 


is responsible for the visible form; and therefore it is of vital importance to the 
student of architectural anatomy, if such a term may be applied to the subject. 
Aside from its technically architectural aspect, the massive framing of our early houses is 


[Ss framework of our early houses, like the bony structure of the human body, 


a thing to delight anyone possessed of the smallest amount of architectural sense. A feeling 
of boundless strength, of security and steadfastness, as well as a notable kind of dignity, 
is inseparable from the ponderous timbers which go to make up these mighty frames. The 
framework of the early house was a logical and straightforward solution of the problem 
which confronted the builder; its simplicity and reasonableness are facts simply beyond 
criticism. 

In considering the framing of the early Connecticut house, it is well to take into 
account the part of England from which the builders in this or that locality of the Colony 
came; for, as would naturally be expected, we find better and more skillful construction 
achieved by the natives of regions of the mother country in which timber was plentiful 
and its traditional use well understood. For instance, the men in Guilford came from 
Surrey and Kent, the Milford men from Essex and York—all parts of England where 
timbered houses were common. The Branford men came for the most part from Wethers- 
field and New Haven; and among the founders of New Haven were many craftsmen 
and carpenters. 

As I have noted, oak was the material chosen by the early builders for the house frame. 
Distinctly a survival of tradition, its use was almost invariable. Extreme difficulty was 
involved in shaping and handling it; but when it had once been put in place, it undeniably 
stayed put. The timbers which we can inspect to-day have for centuries borne faithfully 
the mighty loads imposed upon them. In certain isolated houses, far even to-day from 
other human habitations, the tremendous “sticks” which make up the framework excite 
our wonder as to how they were ever got into place. Certainly, with the limited means at 
the builders’ disposal, their ingenuity as well as their strength must have been sorely 
tried. The “raising bee” is not so ancient an institution as to be beyond the memory of most 
of us of the present generation. Doubtless it had its Colonial prototype. The inhabitants 
of a region must have gathered together when a house was to be “raised,” and by their 
united efforts succeeded in putting together the previously prepared frame. 

The main members of construction were of oak, broad-ax hewn from straight tree 
trunks. White oak appears to have been the variety most commonly used, although red 
oak occurs occasionally. The framing of the Moore house in Windsor (1664) is partly of 
hard pine, and the plates and roof system of the Forbes or Barnes house in East Haven 


22 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


(circa 1740) are of poplar. Chestnut was sometimes employed for rafters, though never 
commonly. The use of oak was so all but universal that the discovery of any other wood 
in a house frame may be regarded as exceptional. 





~ CROSS Oye iit penne 
JS TALCOIT ARMHOLE HOVS PO uke aha 


FIGURE 22. 


Quite without exception, hewing was the method by which the larger timbers were 
shaped; it was not until the latter part of the eighteenth or the beginning of the nineteenth 
century that power sawing supplanted hewing. Even after power sawing was in general use 
for getting out plank and boards, the use of the broad-ax for shaping the major members of 
construction was clung to with a curious tenacity. In very late work the framing material 
was often cut out by means of an “up and down” saw, as the marks on the timbers attest. 





24 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


This instrument was a power saw with a long narrow blade, worked vertically with a 
reciprocating motion. The circular saw was a later invention. 

A general court held at New Haven June 11, 1640, established a scale of charges for 
both hewing and sawing, as follows: “Price for hewing sills, beames, plates or such like 
timber, square hewen to build wth, not above a penny a foote running measure. Sawing 
by the hundred not above 4s.6d. for boards. 5s. for plancks. 5s.6d. for slitworke and to be 
payd for no more than they cutt full and true measure.” 

The early craftsmen’s skill with the broad-ax must have been very great. In the first 
houses, much of the framework was left exposed on the inside of the house, and it was 





FRAMIAG * 


PSN Oak 11 Os aioe ar 
GV bt ROR ite 


FIGURE 24. 





+ SVL PIRSA es 
J MOVLTHROP HOV/E- LAST HAVEN J 


FIGURE 25. 


given no other finish than that which it 
received from the ax. Surfaces were pro- 
duced in this way which were nearly as 
smooth as if planed; and no doubt the 
chamfering of exposed beams was done 
with the same tool. It is obvious that 
small timbers, such as studs and ceiling 
joists, could not very readily have been 
hewn out, owing to the difficulty of 
holding them securely during the opera- 
tion. Hence, even in the earliest houses, 
they were quite generally sawn out. 

A typical framing system of a two- 
room-plan house is illustrated in Figure 
23. From this drawing it will be seen 
that the general scheme of construction 
was as follows: upon the foundation 
walls of stone or brick, a continuous hori- 
zontal timber, variously known as the 
sill, “cil,” or “grundsell,” was laid. The 
last term may be seen in the General 
Court Records for New Haven, of De- 
cember 2, 1656, which read as follows: 
“The Governor acquainted the Towne 
that the occasion of this meeting is 
aboute the meeting house, wef hath been 
viewed by workmen and finde it verey 
defective, many of the timbers being 
very rotten, besides the groundsells.” 
Usually about eight or nine inches in its 
sectional measurements, the sill was 
bedded upon its broader side, or, in other 


The House Frame and Its Construction 25 


words, laid flatwise. The corners were generally framed together by means of a mortise- 
and-tenon joint, such as that shown in Figure 24. Another and less common form of sill 
jointing is that illustrated in Figure 25. 

The joists of the first floor spanned the width of each room, and as a rule their ends 
were framed into the sills and cellar girts. In a few houses, however, of very early date, 
the first-floor joists were built into the foundation walls, and the house sills laid over 
them. Lambert states, in his History of the Colony of New Haven, that “The ground 











ATTEl Atw FROAt 
ok a CORAER Povt 





REAR 
CORALR POST Aske 
PyeLiasy- 2x4 


Sc pRarten-7x 4%. 


RY Piare: 5x7 








at | 
Z—-QRvGi nar Roor 






Le 


« JECTION Mfevas ttl. == | ORIGIAAL FRONT 
Va : PLATE- GxG 


ee CRR On ety tae) fetal Ace 
SERORM ECD a kA IAD bio Shen Pe bocca ad ele ele mom Guard 


FicureE 26. 


26 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


floor was laid below the sills, which projected into the room eight or ten inches.” As a 
result of such an arrangement, the sills necessarily projected into the rooms of the first 
floor, as Lambert states, and as may be seen from the cross section of the older Bushnell 
house in Saybrook (1678-1679), shown in Figure 26. This rare form of construction existed 


Lint Or Prastee 





FRAMLD Hewa Ao OVIRHAAG 
OVYIRHAAG OYERK AAG JSttasiy fost? 


SP OY ae 


FIGURE 27. 


in the Avery house, Groton (1660), and the Baldwin house, Branford (1650), and may 
still be seen in the Freeman Curtis house, Stratford (1710), and the Hempstead house, 
New London (1643). 

Upon each of the four corners of the framed sills, a vertical member, known as the 
corner post, was erected. The posts were tenoned into the sills by means of the usual 
tusk-tenon-and-mortise joint; and often the tenon was secured in place by means of a 


Mipw Lyte] 


WOSANI AA —aASNOPF ONOAULS NaAVH MAN—adsnNoPY slUaopyy 





NosIdvJ\J—avoy Lsog NO asnoY N@AVH Lsvq—asnoy AdTavag 





* \ eesite _ _ 





The House Frame and Its Construction 27 


wooden peg driven through it. Where there was no framed overhang of the second story, 
the posts were of one piece from sill to plate—in other words, through the height of two 
stories. (Figure 27.) Four similar posts, making a total of eight in all, were also erected— 
two in the front and two in the rear wall—as intermediate supports. These four posts 


anh jhe 


feb eer Ie —— 
Be Bt - 16" == SS 


ema bs Sh ee 


al ane = 


= 
re —: 
= SS 


ie “ae 


nM) in 
| | 





Shs 
POYsT : 
| 
Heit 
I 
| 
| | 
log 82 REAR Girt 
\ pre 
Seat Sa | So Se 
(Ney aL ccoaae et 
4 : e 


vi NOMAVE Gy Oey Bene) Mie tal ad ol Reve 
Vm eRe ANTE COnR Dp oni 


FIGURE 28. 


are known as the front and rear chimney posts, according to their position. In the earliest 
houses, all eight posts “flare” or increase in size in one transverse dimension from floor to 
ceiling. Accordingly there was a double flare in the total height of each post—one flare 
for each story. Most often this flare is parallel with the chimney girts, though it occa- 
sionally occurs in the other direction—.e., so as to be parallel with the ridge of the roof. 
A post turned in the latter direction is shown in Figure 28. 






AUR 


CORAER Post Watxyscor 


Paertitioa 
Removed 


—_ . 


27) ol Manne 


FIGURE 29. 





0 OT 14 POON tl On alae + LY OW LEO Were 
+ NEWTOWA 4 7G BR ELE Aw ees 


FIGuRE 30. 


‘Of TUN 


iV eV hee 
valeigeniy eyieap Wishes 2 




















Mr VO i hye 
Da leral Menih 2) Sh Gye or 





"If TUN] 





AVON VAG. 


eI fnoyH LITS MIT 
-VOSIVUVH 


1fOg AINYO)? 


30 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


There are two reasons for the existence of the flare. In the first place, it was a survival 
of framing tradition; for it is to be found in the half-timber work of England. Secondly, 
it was done to provide a better seat or bearing for the ends of the horizontal girts which 
it was the duty of the posts to carry, and which were framed into them. (Figures 29 and 
30.) In some regions, principally the shore towns between New Haven and Saybrook, the 
added depth at the tops of the posts which provided a support for the ends of the girts 
was secured in other ways than by simply flaring one side of the post. The older Bushnell 
house in the town of Saybrook (1678-1679) displays posts of shouldered form (Figure 
26), a rare device. The corner posts of the Harrison-Linsley house in Branford (1690) 
project into the rooms, and are splayed only in the upper third of their height. (Figure 
31.) Two other schemes are illustrated in Figure 32, that which was used in the Starr house 
(circa 1645) being typical of the whole Guilford school, which was more elaborate than 
similar work elsewhere. In that region the increase in depth of the posts was very often 
given a quaintly ornamental treatment. (Figure 33.) 


VACADIAA “HOR ae 
* G¥ido Oras 








} v CALDWELL HOV/E’ 
| ~CVILFORD? 





FIGURE 33. 


The House Frame and Its Construction 


In size the posts were usually 
8 by 10 or 10 by 12 inches, al- 
though in some houses of ex- 
tremely heavy framing they 
were of still greater size. The 
flare quite generally occurred in 
the line of the greatest dimen- 
sion. If a post measured, for 
example, 8 by 10 inches at the 
first-floor level, at the height of 
the ceiling its dimensions would 
probably be 8 by 12 or 14 inches. 

At the level of the second 
floor, a continuous set of heavy 
horizontal timbers, known as 
girts, was framed in between the 
posts. The girts were of corre- 
sponding position with the sills, 
but of much greater size. They 
were always greater in depth 
than in width; if the sectional 
measurements were 9 by 12 
inches, 12 inches would be the 
vertical dimension. Just as the 
sills carried the ends of the first 
floor joists, the girts provided a 
_ support for those of the second 
floor; and the floor joists were 
framed into them, as into the 
sills of the first floor, so that the 





Riar CHimaty 


vr FRAMIAG 


DIV WELL-MI 
HOVSE 


WES ITOWRAR TE OR 


PETATL* 


31 


- 


Post 


X 


FIGURE 34. 


upper surfaces finished flush. The girts are known as the front, end, and rear girts, accord- 


ing to their respective positions. 


In addition to these girts in the outside walls, two additional timbers, called chimney 
girts, were framed across the house from front to rear, one on either side of the central 
chimney. Their ends were secured into the front and rear chimney posts by means of the 
usual mortise-and-tenon joint. (Figure 34.) It should be noted that the tops of the girts are 
framed flush, or on the same level with each other, in all cases. The end and chimney girts, 
because they carry the ends of the summer beams, are always deeper in section than either 
the front or the rear girts. It is only in extremely rare cases that cambered girts appear, such 
as the second-story end girts of the Gleason house in Farmington (circa 1650-1660). This 
feature is, of course, purely a survival of half-timber tradition. 


a2 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


From the middle of the end girt to the middle of the chimney girt extended a timber 
which was generally the heaviest of the whole framework—the summer, also sometimes 
referred to as the summer-beam or summer-tree. There is some diversity of opinion as 
to the derivation of its name; it is probable that it came from the Norman-French word 
“sommier.” It has been suggested that it is a corruption of the word “sumpter,” meaning 
a burden bearer (cf. the “sumpter mule”). This last would seem a reasonable explanation, 
for the summer carries a goodly load. 





CHIMALY fl 
Gest re 


SLYARTS TAV ERAS 
~ NOKRTHFORT” 


FIGURE 35. 


It was the purpose of the summer to provide an intermediate support for the ends of 
the second-floor joists, which were framed into it on either side, from the front and rear 
girts. The conventional method of framing the ends of the summer into the girts which 
carried it was by means of a very ingenious dovetail joint, from which it could not possibly 
slip or pull out. (Figure 35.) Unlike most of the other framing joints, which were secured 
by means of heavy oak pins driven through the tenons, the ends of the summer were 
held in place merely by the weight of the beam itself. 

The framing of the attic floor nearly always corresponds to the framing of the second 
floor, though as I explain in the chapter on roof framing, occasional variations are to be 
met with. A second summer corresponds to that on the first floor, and end chimney girts 
repeat those below at the second floor level; but the front and rear girts now become the 
front and rear plates respectively, and form the supports for the rafter feet. 


The House Frame and Its Construction 23 





VEUIROey Seem et Cl lO ns 
Peek WIL AN S HOW SE WETHER SIDE LD 7 


FicureE 36. 


The term “plate” is of old usage, as the following extract from the New Haven Court 
Record for January 19, 1659, attests: “Mr. Tuttle desired that the takeing down the turret 
and towre might be forebourne, & that the shores might be renewed, & the plates lined 
where they were weake.” The building referred to is the old meeting house which at that 
time stood upon the Green. 

The rear plate was usually framed in the conventional way, in line with the girt below 
it; but a great deal of variation is to be met with in the placing of the front plate. What- 
ever arrangement was resorted to by the builders, their object was the same in every 
case: namely, to project the outer face of the plate beyond the house line sufficiently to 


34. The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


| pial 


Se Fi 





ig 


LLEANTO 


SSS GZ 

RATIERY/— = E , MLL YA 

TA a 14" SSS 
i va 


Ws | 

/ ; ( HH HI 
| 

FROM TAGE ie 


NSU 


<< GABLE RAFTER 
ie) 
— 8 


ee “3 





Hi EAT a Ne geue 
_— Pd ZS aii\\ barter 
2 See A BZ ON 
—— z WY <K AA4- A 
SEE ares - Pe Ne 
[a@ ria Nee 
Ae | i SO 14 tar, x 


] 
bt PROMO Vir abe 


SJ TW WON bist eee 
FIGURE 37. 


serve as a foundation for 
cornice construction. Much 
and varied ingenuity is to 
be seen in the various fram- 
ing methods which were put 
into play. Perhaps the com- 
monest practice was to 
frame a second plate out be- 
yond the first plate, which 
was on the house line. From 
Figure 36, a typical exam- 
ple, it will be seen that the 
second plate is supported by 
the projecting ends of the 
second-floor girts, which are 
halved over the first plate 
where they cross it. Other. 
forms of front plate fram- 
ing are treated in detail in 
Chapter XII, The Main 
Cornice. 

Some variation is to be 
met with in the manner of 


framing the second end 


girts, which form the base 
of the gable. The projecting 
or overhanging gable was a 
common feature of early 
work, and it persisted in 
modified form until a late 
date. Where the gable does 
overhang, its projection is 
secured in one of two ways: 
either by framing out the 
end girt beyond the house 


line, by means of the supporting ends of the plates which were extended for that pur- 
pose; or by framing a second end girt outside the first one, which was in its usual position. 
The latter arrangement, which exists in the Stowe house, Milford (1685-1690), and the 
Moore house, Windsor (1664), is comparatively rare. A typical instance of gable over- 
hang secured by framing out the end girt is to be seen in the Hall house, Cheshire (1730). 
Its construction is shown in detail in Figure 37. (Also see Plate XVII.) 


Peet "ge aUNOLYy 


ee, . SONI RV Haeeyey ies 


Wats oe 
| l Lee , SR VEN ON Ok Sa ae 


*AYOISHIAOYV = 
(MUTANT FAN AT S 














; SS z 
Vyay- 





¥irz ~~ — = best 
y tj N= = iil ee t 


as 


Sais eye eT Ee, 
< L413 , ~. 





36 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


Braces, when used, were commonly framed in diagonally between posts and first-floor 
girts; though very often the order was reversed, and the braces ran from the posts up to. 
the plates and second end girts. (Figures 38 and 39.) Many houses display a complete sys- 
tem of bracing, which commonly occurs in outside walls. 

To return to the sills: we find that the first-floor joists were in every case framed into 
them in such a manner that the tops of the sills and the tops of the joists finished flush, 
as I have stated. In most cases, the first-floor joists were simply rough logs, from six to ten 
inches in diameter, with the upper surfaces hewn off so as to provide a flat surface to which 


Post 


=F a —— —_ 


Joists i 
Re ERE ES LST 


SI tt 
tts 





Post Poyt 


JS TYPICAL FIRST NOOR Pea Aiea 


FIGURE 40. 


the floor boards could be nailed. As they were exposed only in the cellar, the bark was 
usually left on these joists, which were spaced from two to three feet on centers. In direc- 
tion, the first-floor joists extended in almost every case from the end sills to the cellar chim- 
ney girts, so that they ran parallel with the front of the house. A typical first-floor framing 
plan is given in Figure 40. Occasionally a variation of this system is found, in which a 
cellar summer occurs. The joists are then framed into this beam, and run to it from the 
front and rear sills. Such an arrangement may be seen in the cross section of the Bidwell- 
Mix house in West Hartford (1695-1700), shown in Figure 12. The cellar summer in 
this instance measures 11 by 16 inches in section, and is broad-ax hewn on all four sides. 
A cellar summer may also be seen in the Stevens house, West Haven (1735), although in 
this case it extends from the front to the rear sill, and the first-floor joists are framed into 


SALLY] 


aTaI4 AOOUG—dasNoP NVING IIMA aASAMOLNOPA[—dSNOF Aaaduvd 


TE Bi SANE 


4; 


P 








The House Frame and Its Construction 37 


it from the cellar chimney girt and the end sill, on either side. This timber, which is also 
hewn, measures 81% inches in depth by 11 inches in width. 

A typical framing plan of the second floor of a house of lean-to type is shown in Figure 
41, from which it will be seen that it very closely approximated that of the first or ground 
floor; the principal difference being in the decreased size of the floor joists, due to the 
presence of the summers. In the earliest houses, before the advent of plastering, the second- 
and attic-floor joists were left exposed, appearing against the ceilings or the under sides of 
the floors above them. Such joists were always of comparatively small size; sectional 
measurements of those in the Caleb Dudley house in North Guilford (circa 1690) show 


frac Foare 


Toy? 





el yPT Gat PC OND JLOOR CEAMING PLAN 


FicurRE 41. 


them to be 234 by 3% inches, of those in the Nathaniel Strong house in Windsor (1698), 
21% by 4% inches, and of those in the Deacon Stephen Hotchkiss house in Cheshire (circa 
1730), 3 by 3% inches. 

As I have already noted, these joists, because of the difficulty of hewing timbers 
so small, were sawn or split from logs or larger timbers. When left exposed, they were 
carefully planed, and the lower corners either slightly chamfered or finished with a three- 
quarter bead, measuring from 3 to % inch. The second-floor joists were always framed 
into their supporting beams so that the tops of all finished flush; whereas the attic-floor 
joists, in some houses, were placed upon the plates, and not framed into them. (Figure 
34.) This arrangement also exists in the older Williams house in Wethersfield (circa 
1680). (Figure 126.) Construction of this sort, a characteristic of very early work, is com- 
paratively rare. The average spacing of both second- and attic-floor joists was in the neigh- 







LAS WS ee ’ 


0} 
L | 
nit I rh al | 


2k. 

Se ~ > SSS 
Li) eyes 
Pk =e rt 


FIGURE 42. 








RIAD HW Osss fot | 
1 
if 


A 


Ea HE 


| LeaaAtro 
H 


SAL eal COC lERSARMSIN Goat ele Ane 
VOR LI OF NOL “Ob ar tol WAVE A + 


FIGURE 43. 


cohatetalaG 


FRAMING 7 
es SSNS 


os IS = Rly IN 









ot el 
TM 


EE RA OCA ee el Lye OVALS 
vBRAAFORT® 





FIGURE 44. 





LiaaAto Girt 


40 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


borhood of twenty inches on centers. A framing plan of the Moulthrop house (circa 1690), 
which formerly stood in East Haven, is shown in Figure 43. It is typical of the central- 
chimney house of lean-to type. 

The studs, or intermediate framing members of the exterior walls, were also small 
timbers, generally measuring about 2% by 3 inches in section. In height they were only 
the distance between two horizontal members of construction; for instance, one set of 
studs ran from the sill to the first girt, and the second set from the first girt to the plate. 
Inasmuch as the studs bore no vertical load, they were naturally small; still, their ends 





















































RLAR eee (asnu FLook 


Se ‘39 











































































































NG", eal 








SS Uy REAP 
V4, | rte 
[| Poss 














PO] 
Shmasseutaniussiivesneneeruspe Unrorin st 
a 


eT LIAT OMA It 
FRAA TAL 


——s oe : 
+ GLEBE HOVYE-WOOVBVRY® 
































FIGuRE 45. 


were always framed into the beams at the top and bottom by means of the usual tusk- 
tenon-and-mortise joint. The outside faces of the studs, and the main members of con- 
struction which held them, were in all cases framed flush. Like the joists, they were al- 
most always sawed, rather than hewn. They were spaced from twenty inches to two feet on 
centers. 

The studs of the interior walls or partitions were similar in size and spacing. Very often, 
144- or 14-inch oak planks were used in their stead, as a foundation to which the lath 
could be nailed. 

In Connecticut there exist a large number of so-called “plank-frame” houses, in the con- 
struction of which oak planks of from 1% to 2 inches in thickness were used in the out- 
side walls, in place of the usual studs. In such houses, of which the Norton house in the 


The House Frame and Its Construction 41 


town of Guilford (circa 1690) is a typi- 
cal example, the planks were applied 
vertically, and extended in one unbroken 
length from sill to plate. Varying in 
width from 12 to 15 inches, or even 
more, they were secured to the main 
framework, which was the same as that 
of a studded house, by means of oak pins 
about three-quarters of an inch in diame- 


ter. These pins were driven through + W111 


holes bored through the planks and into 
the sills, girts, and plates. Usually two 
pins were placed at each bearing. The 
planking of the Norton house is placed 





le On if 


ae 






EOLY Jala /, 
Gent O AY fy: 


Ficure 46. 


so that spaces of about two inches’ width occur between the planks. These spaces were 
plugged with a mixture of clay and cut straw. In some cases, as Figure 46 shows, the planks 


were set into a rabbet cut in the sill. 


There is, on the whole, very little variation from the framing scheme just described. 
Minor differences occasionally occur, but the major members of construction do not vary. 
During the period of the lean-to, the end sills were extended and a new rear sill was placed 


upon the new foundations; two new corner 
posts, one story high, were erected, as well as 
two new rear chimney posts, so that the total 
number became twelve, instead of eight, as for- 
merly. Upon these four new rear posts was 
placed the new rear plate of the lean-to, at the 
level of the old rear girt, as illustrated in Figure 
8. New end girts were framed in between the 
old and the new rear corner posts, and, parallel 
with them, extensions of the chimney girts back 
to the new rear chimney posts. Figure 47 shows 
the method whereby the extensions of the chim- 
ney girts were sometimes framed into the old 
rear girts. The ceiling joists of the lean-to ran 
from the old rear girts to the new rear lean-to 
plate. (Figure 6.) When the lean-to became an 
organic part of the house, this framing became 
integral with that of the main body of the house. 
In this event the old rear girt becomes in reality 
a second summer, though, unlike the first one, 
it does not appear across the ceiling of a room. 


CHIMNEY Poyt aa 











WimaVeh Rls AYE Ee ROM Af. 
VPA OCR Oe tis Olk ye * 
FIGURE 47. 



































ae AE ES SUEROM Wah 


FoR Ae Mei eG 





DAA G RA te 





Ficure 48. 


The House Frame and Its Construction 43 


During the next step, when the lean-to disappears and the house becomes of two full 
stories throughout, the full number of twelve posts is retained, and the framing remains 
as before, with the exception that the one-story rear posts are replaced by two-story posts 
similar to those in the front wall, and the rear plate is placed at the same level as the front 
one. What was formerly the rear plate, in the house of but one room in depth, now be- 
comes a second summer of the second story; and the two chimney girts of the second 
story, as well as the end girts, are extended until they meet the new rear plate. (Figure 48.) 

Even in the house of central-hall plan, the fundamental framing scheme remains un- 
changed. The framing of a house of this type is in reality that of two houses of two-room 
plan placed side by side and connected by extensions of the sills and girts. As the two- 
room-plan houses have been turned at right angles to their former position, their second- 
story end girts now become the front and rear plates, and what were their plates become 
the end girts of the new arrangement. The summer beams, which appear to run from 
front to rear, in reality retain their old positions, and extend from the outside wall to 
the chimney. 


CBE ESB SD IDE Ne ENG FIN FENN HN HII Meee Medea ope 


Chapter IV. Roof Framing 


O the student of our early architecture, the framing of the roof is of importance 

scarcely secondary to that of the house itself. The two systems of framing are 

in fact so closely connected and so interdependent that it is often difficult to 
separate them. Nevertheless it is possible to classify the various modes of roof construc- 
tion into several groups, each of which has its distinct characteristics. 

In examining the house frame, we found that its construction was always or nearly 
always broadly similar. There were, to be sure, occasionally deviations from the general 
scheme, such as expressions 
of localism in the framing 
of joints; but on the whole 
the major members of the 
framework varied but little 
in size and arrangement. In 
the matter of roof construc- 
tion, however, there is no 
corresponding uniformity. 
We do not find one general 
scheme followed through- 
out. The roof frame varied 

FIGuRE 49. greatly in the details of its 

construction, and in several 

localities was radically different in system. Localism and individualism were more strongly 

accented in roof framing than in any other single feature of the early Connecticut house 
except the overhang. : 

Without doubt, the system of roof construction most frequently employed was that 
which made use of common rafters, with horizontal roof boarding. Even this simple 
arrangement may be divided into two usages: under one, collar beams were used; under 
the other, they were not. These variations were, as might be expected, regional. For in- 
stance, where a roof frame consists of a number of “common” rafters—.e., rafters all of 
the same size—spaced an equal distance on centers, the collar beam is to be expected and 
is generally found. It was used in order to prevent the rafters from sagging inward at 
their centers under the weight of the roof boards and shingles which they carried. (Figure 
49.) In the New Haven Colony, however, the use of collar beams was the exception rather 
than the rule, and their absence is peculiar to that territory. From Figure 49 it may be seen 
that the collar beam was in reality the third member of a simple truss, and that it acted 
as a strut, or member in compression. This illustration shows the two general methods by 





‘TA GLVIg 


QTHIAANS—dSNVJA] AVL) AUNAGOOMA—aASNOHP AdATL) 





Ta 
se a ae 





k* 


Stree ee eee aD eee 


o~r_ 





Roof Framing 45 





mereGOt | EANIAG * 
PeeryercAL COMMOA Rarite fystin 7 


FIGURE 50. 


which the collar was framed into the rafters. Of the two, the tusk-tenon-and-mortise joint 
is the more common, although the half-dovetail joint is to be met with rather frequently. 
These joints were nearly always secured by means of the inevitable wooden peg of about 
three-fourths inch diameter. Occasionally we find an example which proves the builder’s 
realization that the peg was superfluous; that the combined weight of roof and rafters was 
more than sufficient to keep the collar beam in place, and that in no way could its tenon slip 
out of its mortise. 

Where the roof frame consisted of a system of common rafters, the spacing was gen- 
erally from three to four feet on centers, and all the rafters were alike. (Figure 50.) A 
great deal of variation is to 
be met with in the sectional 
dimensions of such rafters; 
in some instances the section 
is nearly square, in others 
it is rectangular. Rafters of 
square section usually meas- 
ure about 5 by 5 inches to 
6 by 6 inches; those of 
rectangular section 5 by 7. 
or 6 by 8 inches. 

The more carefully built 
_ and finely finished houses 
have rafters which are 
broad-ax hewn; those of the Ficure 51. 





46 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 





¥ORAC OF eR EAM te acee 
Joe Tyee Pato Ki Lee PAY RL ti oe ETM es 


FIGURE 52. 


more crudely built houses may be simply rough poles, dressed on one side, and still re- 
taining much of their original bark. Where rafters meet at the ridge, they are almost in- 
variably framed together by means of the tenon joint, as shown in Figure 51. The ridge- 
pole is never to be found except where it is part of a purlin system (Figure 52). 

The common method of securing a footing for the rafters was by means of a double 
notch cut into the plates at their point of intersection. (Figure 53.) This double step pro- 
vided a bearing for the rafter butt, which was further held in place by means of a peg of 
about one inch diameter, driven through it into the plate. 

The builders of the Guilford 
and Branford houses, and of those 
in the surrounding region, em- 
ployed a totally different method 
of roof construction. These houses 
display, in nearly every example, 
roof frames made up of four, six, 
or eight pairs of heavy principal 
rafters, into which were framed 
horizontal purlins. These purlins, 
being horizontal, necessitated the 
use of vertical roof boarding, which 
extended up and down from ridge 
to plates, in the same direction as 
the rafters themselves. 

Where the purlin system exists, 
FIGURE 53. a great deal of variation is to be 





Roof Framing 47 


found in the number, size, placing, and framing of these members. It is interesting to 
note that the influence of this framing system extended as far eastward as Saybrook, where 
an occasional house is to be found, the roof of which is built in this manner. 

A typical system of purlin construction is to be seen in the roof of the Harrison-Linsley 
house in Branford (1690). (Figure 54.) This framework is made up of six pairs of 
principal rafters, which are of oak, hewn, and about 4% by 634 inches in section. These 
principals are spaced about eight feet on centers, with the exception of those forming the 
central bay, which are nine feet on centers. Into these rafters are framed the purlins, 















TILLEY 


e a 
+4 Po ie ed hfe at 


HY : 
ee Ld) 


unan PULTE ET me 








4x5 /z 
ee ed 3x4 
i 
































REAR FLAti- 654 x8 


MOA JHOWIAG “ROOF FrRANING = 


Beer PO N= LINSLLY HOVSE- DRANFORYT Y 
FIGURE 54. 





j SX MMER 


PACITY EIAAL J PtTIOA OF AITIC=- SHOWING TRANIAG 
PaeON TT HOP HOVE ob Aen HAY EAS 


‘RIGURE 5 5. 


48 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


roughly 3 by 4 inches, three rows on the front, and the same number on the rear, with a 
single purlin at the peak, forming the ridge. These purlins, where they cross the rafters, are 
halved into them, and secured in addition by a wooden peg driven through the joint. The 
roof boarding, which is of wide oak boards, an inch thick, of course extends up and down 
from ridge to plates. 





Piare- Ox te fe PyeLia s- 1% « Zhe 





i eT. Oaic JiLPf- Bx10 


Hea) 





CROSS, SCT Ones 
SMOVLTHROP Hovst-East HAVEN 4 


Figure 56. 


The roof of the Acadian house in Guilford (1670) is framed in quite the same manner, 
with the exception that there are six rows of purlins, front and rear, in addition to that at 
the ridge. The principal rafters are 414 by 8 inches in section, and the purlins 2% by 234 
inches, framed flatwise into the rafters. (Figure 8.) 

In the roof of the Moulthrop house in East Haven (demolished in 1919) there was 
to be seen a framing scheme of the utmost interest. (Figure 55.) Although made up of 
horizontal purlins and the usual rafters, this roof is not properly classifiable under the 


Roof Framing 49 


purlin system. It is rather to be regarded as a survival of the traditional use of thatch, for 
the small and closely spaced purlins were in reality nothing more or less than thatch poles. 
These purlins, which were approximately 134 by 2% inches in section, and from 12 to 13 
inches on centers, were spiked on to the rafters, and the shingles in turn nailed to them. 
Rafters and purlins were of oak, and the shingles of white pine, 2 feet 6 inches long, 
hand shaved. (Figure 56.) 









SMOVLYIHROP 
HOV. 


"LAST HAVEN? 






“Stctiod OF Plate 
SHOWIAG Ratter 
IM Oly Poyitiods 





—_—_ 


—_ ete a D 
See ea 0 
Pose k | H 


FIGURE 57. 


In the framing of this roof, there is also written a novel bit of architectural history. 
From Figure 57 it may be seen that the rear or lean-to rafters have been raised out of the 
seats cut for them in the rear plate, and secured in a new position by means of oak blocks 
placed beneath them where they bear on the plate, and fifteen inches above it. In addition, 
each rear rafter has been lengthened about two feet by means of a new piece spliced on to 
its upper end. This blocking up and lengthening out of the rafters was made necessary 
by an increase in the depth of the lean-to rooms, which at some time in the history of the 
house must have been found necessary. 


50 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


Another variation of the purlin system may be seen in the roof of the Bradley house in 
Branford (circa 1730). This roof is framed with four pairs of very heavy principal rafters, 
which, with their unusually large collar beams, really form four sturdy trusses. (Figure 
58.) These trusses, if so they may be called, carry two heavy purlins, which are framed 
into them. Into these purlins, in turn, two small rafters are framed between each two pairs 





# RO: O07 F 7 RAG 


JS BRAD LE Y HOV SP sDiehee Ose 


Ficure 58. 


of trusses. The principal rafters, or legs of the trusses, it should be observed, are two 
inches heavier at the butt than at their apex. The steep pitch of this roof should also be 
noted. The roof of the Morris house at Morris Cove, near New Haven, is framed in a 
similar manner. 

A still different form of roof construction exists in the Bidwell-Mix house in West 
Hartford (1695-1700), and the older Williams house in Wethersfield (circa 1680). 
The framing of these two roofs is markedly similar, as may be seen from Figure 59. 
The system in each case consists of four pairs of principal rafters, measuring 4% by 8 
inches deep, of hewn oak, framed together at the ridge in the customary manner. A single 
horizontal purlin is framed in between every two rafters, and serves as a support for the 


Roof Framing a 


smaller common rafters which bear upon it, and which are held in place by pegs. These 
smaller intermediate rafters are simply rough poles of about four inches’ diameter, slightly 
flattened on the outer side. In both of these houses, the end sets of rafters are above the 
end girts, and the central pairs above the chimney girts. Rafter feet and girts therefore 
meet the plate at the same point. (Figure 34.) 


Commoa ane 4A’ Tia 
: Pyeiia AES or 


LCwinnty GiRty: Fo Sea, Joist ty: poe aa 
Pepe WE LL- MIX HOVSE -WEYT HARTFORD S 


PRIACIPAL 
oy 



































oh, GiIRt- x12" 





= 







Aad ie 
= 


——— Gint-8 x12" 





Sores Tee 7 Tx SYN MER Son eo aoe a 


ert tT ytR WILLIAMS HOVSE- WETHERSFIELY J 
*LOAGITVDIAAL /tCtItOAs OF Attits -SHOWIAG FRAMIAG* 


FIGuRE 59. 


It is obvious that in a house of the lean-to type the width of the lean-to on the first 
floor was determined by the pitch or angle of the rear rafters from the main house ridge 
to the rear plate. (Figure 6.) Extending downward from that point, their intersection 
with the first-floor ceiling joists determined the location of the lean-to plate. We have 
seen how a greater width of lean-to was secured, at considerable pains, by a rearrangement 
of the rear rafters of the Moulthrop house; let us see how the same problem was solved 
in other cases. 


52 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


In Guilford, Branford, and the surrounding region we find a group of houses, of which 
the old Evarts Tavern of Northford (circa 1710) is typical, and in which the desired addi- 
tional width of lean-to was secured by the use of a second rear plate, from 18 to 24 inches 
above the first rear plate. This second rear plate served in reality as a purlin, and simply 
afforded an intermediate bearing for the long lean-to rafters. (Figure 39.) 









13% Joists. 
SYAMER TxuZ 






Froar Pare 


The XIG™ ‘= ( 


Froar Girt | Leanto Paare 
Bex & 





“CROSS . Jeo 
SEY ARYTS TAV ERS SO eee 


Ficure 60. 


The problem was met in a different way by the builder of the Deacon Stephen Hotchkiss 
house in Cheshire (circa 1730). This roof is framed with six pairs of heavy rafters, which 
increase in size toward their butts; into them are halved continuous 2 by 4 inch purlins, 
with a 4 by 4 inch purlin forming the ridge. (Figure 61.) Here lies the point of interest: 
to secure a greater span for the rear rafters, the ends of the girts, over which they occur, 
were cantilevered out beyond the rear plate, and tenoned into the rafters, which they sup- 


“TIA dlvid 


NOLNITZ—asnoYe NVOAOP] duorLuvy{—asnoy a1Q 























Roof Framing 53 


ported. (Figure 61.) The second-story summers, however, instead of running from end 
girt to chimney girt in the usual manner, were turned at right angles and extended from 
front to rear plate, so that their cantilevered ends provided bearings for the two rafters, 
each of which was intermediate between the end and chimney girts. (Figure 62.) Similar 
construction is to be found in the Hall house, Cheshire (1730), where the two intermediate 
girts above mentioned appear as summers against the second-story ceilings, running parallel 





Sei fa ent OHA a 
Peer MCOA STEPH EA HOLCHIG re chOV SES ORE SHIRE 7 


Ficure 61. 


“Rarrir fs OttvR Onty Oven GIRTY - 





Nl Sea ee ae | re ee 
Os 
RN lacie a ESO 











erA Taek ROA Bate Geral ok 
S DEACOR STEPHEN NOTCURISCHOV 7S Olt ee 


FIGuRE 62. 


— 
$e ee eee ° } RiniRS Eee entre ree Ba 
RAFTER- 
iF 1a | a i IZ” Piven 
| tpomer ihe Pyesid 


R cnsnsusasecmamene cman (1 


aren oI ine 


=——_— 





Exy Girt- 6x 14 REAR PLATE-S2x77 Girt Sx” 


\ 


TLONGITVUDIAAL /SECTION-OF ATTIC - /HOWIAG FRAMIAG 
S HALL HOV, bo Cae 


FicureE 63. 


Roof Framing ie 


with the ends of the house. These two beams are cased, and have handsomely panelled 
soffits. (Figures 63 and 64.) 

This method of cantilever girt construction also appears as a characteristic of East Haven 
houses. The roof of the Bradley-Tyler house (circa 1745) is so framed (Figure 38), as 
is that of the Forbes or Barnes house (circa 1740). (Figure 65.) There is this difference, 





















































































































































ee es 
*LEANTO FRAMING: Papeete 

i 
[| 


VHNLL HOYSE@ CHESHIRE « 


FicurRE 64. 


however: the Bradley-Tyler house roof is made up of six pairs of principal rafters, into 
which are framed light horizontal purlins; whereas the Forbes or Barnes house roof is 
constructed with ten pairs of common rafters, which require, besides the two end and two 
chimney girts, six additional intermediates to support them. These additional six girts take 
the place of the attic floor joists, and they are halved on to the front and rear plates, so 
that they finish flush with them, top and bottom. These six girts do not appear below the 


56 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


plastered ceiling of the second story, as do those in the Hall house. This method of 
cantilevered girt construction exists in the Benjamin house, Milford (circa 1750). I have 
not found it in any other localities than those mentioned. Although it may have been 
utilized to a considerable extent in those places, it cannot properly be called, on the whole, 
a common form of construction. 


Rake Uetee 
JOINT 





¥) CROSS aon 


JS FORBES- DARALS: HO V7 tr 8 an fee 


Ficure 65. 


This is the appropriate point at which to speak of the early roof pitch, or the angle at 
which the rafters were set. Undoubtedly, steepness was a characteristic of early roof con- 
struction. This tendency is easily explained by the fact that men who came from England 
were used to steeply pitched roofs, which were so built through actual necessity. English 
roof coverings were mainly of two sorts: thatch and slate. A thatch roof must be steep to 
shed water properly: and a slate roof must likewise be steep in order to transmute the great 


Roof Framing 67 


dead weight of the slates into a nearly vertical load upon the outside walls, rather than 
into an outward thrust, as would happen with a roof of flat pitch. We encounter here, once 
more then, the strong factor of tradition. There is every reason to believe that thatch was 
employed as the roofing material of the earliest houses, and that its use was discontinued 
only when it was found unsuited to the rigors and severe storms of our climate. The early 






V7, 
; Ki 


fi H My 
hs. i ee = 


ine 





y it 





URUGr OMLRNI LAG ee eee 
Seong 


*FORDEY-BDARALY HOVSE- EAYT HAVEN © 


Ficur_E 66. 


town records of Windsor mention the use of thatch as a roof covering of the church there; 
and if it were used for such a building, it is highly probable that it was used for houses as 
well. The early court records of New Haven also make mention of thatchers among the 
workmen present in the colony at that time. The Guilford records for the summer of 1651 
ordered “the meeting house to be thatched and clayed before winter.” Claying probably 
meant pointing the walls, which were of stone. As Atwater says: “The order to thatch 
shows that in Guilford, if not in other plantations, a thatched roof was thought worthy 
to cover the most honored edifices.”? Speaking of the first habitations erected in the New 


58 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


Haven Colony, he says: “From the mention of thatchers, and the precautions taken 
against fire, it may be inferred that these humble tenements (log houses) were roofed 
with thatch.” His inference is further strengthened by the existence of the office of 
chimney-viewer and by the frequent mention, in the early records of the colony, of the 
men who held it. According to the Hartford records it was the duty of the chimney- 
viewers to examine the chimneys every six weeks in winter, and every quarter in summer; 


[—_ ht 


—EE EEE 
ee nn, eee = 


LATTER /aaimiae 


LUM MER 





“SECTION SWOWSVA CoA at etna Weems 


S RILLA SMITH HONG eo hee 
Ficure 67. 


and it is probable that the office very closely corresponds with that of the present-day 
fire-warden. It was, therefore, a post of importance and no mean responsibility, for in a 
way the safety of the community depended upon the vigilance of these men. “Chimney- 
viewers” were elected in Hartford until 1706. 

The use of many small purlins, which may originally have been thatch poles, in con- 
structing the roof of the Moulthrop house is also significant. Possibly this house had 
originally a thatched roof. 

The drawing of the Governor Treat house, Milford, copied from one of Lambert’s 
illustrations, shows a roof of extremely steep pitch. (Figure 68.) Even making allowance 
for exaggeration or faulty draftsmanship, the angle of the roof must have been very 
sharp. The Hempstead house of New London, the western part of which was built in 
1643, is one of the earliest wooden houses standing to-day in the state of Connecticut. 
The pitch of the original roof of this house, as may be seen in the attic, where the old gable 
rafters are still in place, was fifteen inches to the foot, a very steep pitch. (Figure 69.) 
Mr. Ralph D. Smith, in information furnished Mr. Palfrey for his history, states that 


Roof Framing 59 


the roof of the Whitfield house in Guilford (1639) was originally 60°. As the tradition 
died out and the actual necessity for the steep roof disappeared, the roof pitch grew flatter. 
It finally became stabilized in the neighborhood of 45° (twelve inches, or square pitch), 
though of course there were deviations from this in either direction. 








See s Siete Saas — se8ho.s Sorurs 
VK, Ps SS Sa ° 
av = Aw a . oa “S _- Titi 
Ba et ket a oo 
2 hag ole. Ete, 
se. be . 
4 oe 
oh 
Ficur_e 68. 









TENOALY LAYS OF 
CASEMEAT FRAME - 


Prevent GABLE Wiarow 
Not JHOWAS Sorter Liars 
JAVICATE Oty CASEMEAT 
WiAvow FRAAL-~ 


WL hee Fe Ge kb re Eke 
YORUNP SIN IS HOVSL-~-AtLW LOATORN S 


FicurE 69. 


The origin of the gambrel roof appears to be very uncertain, and there is considerable 
doubt as to when it first appeared and whence it came. It was undoubtedly the result of 
an attempt to obtain greater head-room, without increasing the height of the roof. The 
construction or framing of the gambrel roof is invariably a handsome piece of work; and 


60 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


in many houses of which it is a part, such as the Webb-Welles house, Wethersfield (1751), 
and those of its class, it forms the chief feature of architectural interest. 

The gambrel frame varies but little in its details; the main members of construction are 
always the same. A typical system of gambrel construction is shown in Figure 70. From 
this diagram it will be seen that a heavy horizontal purlin, supported by posts which have 
a footing upon the second-story girts below, is placed at the intersection of the two roof 
pitches, to provide a bearing for the common rafters of the roof. These two purlins— 








aah ORs Lop dt ha Bo Wy Wh pw, OX poe 


Ab AL ty Gime Me aah ve thay & 


FIGURE 70. 


for there is one for each side of the roof—are usually secured by diagonal braces down 
to the posts which carry them, and by additional horizontal cross ties between correspond- 
ing front and rear posts. 

The roof of the Glebe house, Woodbury (circa 1753), is an interesting combination of 
the gambrel and the lean-to; the first pitch of the rear roof is extended down over the 
rear part of the house in the customary lean-to fashion. (Plate VI.) 

The attics of gambrel-roofed houses, built in the neighborhood of 1750 or after, are 
usually very large and spacious, and a “double-deck” arrangement, consisting of a second 
attic floor built in at the level of the purlins, is often to be found. The Webb-Welles 
house, Wethersfield (1751), the Pitkin house, East Hartford (1740-1750), and the Joel 
Bradley house, North Haven (1759), all exhibit the double-floor arrangement in the attic. 


WHE BAY ek | 


aqdosr TIN £)—asnop NVWCTI MA -ONV TAH AUNANOLSV TL) HLNO$—dasnoy Ua.LSTT TOR 

















~~. =e 





Root Framing 61 


The hip roof is characteristic of very late work, approaching 1800, or even later. It 
was never a common form of roof framing. The general scheme of construction is very 
similar to that of the gambrel roof, in that a single heavy horizontal purlin is framed 
upon posts rising from the second-story girts. This purlin, which is continuous and follows 
the four sides of the house, parallel with each in turn, forms the necessary support for 
the rafters of very flat pitch. With this type of roof, of which the Gay house, Suffield 
(1795), affords a good example, it should be noted that the second-story girts have be- 
come end plates, for the rafter feet bear upon them. Very rarely, as in the Prudence 
Crandall house, Canterbury (circa 1815), a hip roof made up of two pitches is to be 
found. Such a roof is really a combination of hip and gambrel. (Plate XXX.) 








i! 
a | 
s | 












/ 


oe 


e GLEBE HOVSE-WOOPBRYRY + 


FicureE 71. 


GEESE SGN EIGN HG HSE NN ORI IN MORIN HAY MIDE RD 


Chapter V. ‘The Overhang 


HE overhang is perhaps the most individual structural feature of the seventeenth- 
century Connecticut house. The overhang, as it is commonly referred to, is the 
projection of the second story beyond the first; and it usually occurred across 

the front of the house. Like many other characteristics of the earliest structures, the over- 
hang was distinctly a survival of English tradition. It was a common feature of sixteenth- 
and seventeenth-century English town architecture. The purpose of the projecting stories 
or “jetties” was to provide protection from the weather to the stalls or booths which often 
existed beneath them on the ground floor. 

The overhang, an extremely ancient form of construction, may be traced to a very 
remote origin. It even harks back to the days when Pompeii was a flourishing city. An edict 
of the Roman emperors forbade its use in narrow streets there, on the ground of its cur- 
tailment of sunlight and air. 

Because the English overhang is chiefly to be found in the architecture of the towns 
and cities, seldom occurring in the country, we may reasonably expect to find it used in 
Connecticut in regions settled by craftsmen who originally came from towns and cities. 
The English overhang was always produced by framing, and was accordingly structural. 
In Connecticut, it remained of similar design up to 1675 or thereabout; for it was probably 
brought to American shores by the Yorkshire carpenters who emigrated to this country. 
In England the overhang occurred across the front of the house, which stood with its gable 
end toward the street. It is worthy of note that in Connecticut the tradition of constructing 
the overhang across the front was retained, although the house was turned so that its gable 
ends no longer faced the street or road upon which it stood. A framed overhang at the 
ends of the house was not common in Connecticut, and the projection was never greater 
than four or six inches. No form of overhang framing ever occurred at the rear of the 
house. 

From Figure 27 a clear idea may be gained of the manner in which the framed over- 
hang was constructed. It will be seen that the posts were but a single story in height, and 
that the second-story posts were framed out upon the projecting ends of chimney and 
end girts. Into these second-story posts a second front girt was framed. The system of 
double first-story front girts is therefore typical of the framed overhang. The projection 
of the second story beyond the first was generally in the neighborhood of two feet, which 
it never exceeded, though in some cases it was less. It should be noted that the framed 
overhang did not occur in towns lying outside the Connecticut River Valley, and that it 
never existed in the New Haven Colony. 

In its earliest form the overhang was embellished on its under side with ornamental 
pendants or “drops,” which served as terminations to the lower ends of the front second- 





WHITMAN HousE—FARMINGTON OLpDER CowLes HousE—FARMINGTON 





From a DEMoLIsHED HousE—FARMINGTON Moorrt HousE—WInDsOoR 


Bratt NS 


ee ea ee eee es oe, ee ee 








: * 
A 
é 
; > 
\ 
# 
\ 
so =" 
‘ 
é 
“ 
ss 
’ 
e 
: ." 
\ LM 
~ <a Vos 


The Overhang 63 


story posts. There were thus four drops across the front of the house. (Figure 72.) These 
drops, which were hewn or worked out of the lower ends of the posts, of which they 
Were an integral part, were of pleasing contour, and gave a decidedly piquant charm to 
the houses they adorned. Aside from the one example of chamfered girts, to be seen on the 
front of the Hyland-Wildman house, their use is the only instance of decorative treatment 
of structural forms in connection with the Connecticut house exterior. 


one 





mT 

Or et 

“EG | ne Hn 

x aus ty { 

e we abo alate Hs NT Nn nth TT 
; Y £ TTT S 
ARIA, © SMT | fee 

TCV NS 
poset ia hk td 






7 


" * 
a es 
oe ANN 
os tees ay, 


«sh 
f oy 

be “yes 7 (lee 
allege: Sake “6 


FIGURE 72. 


During the first stage the drops were sometimes supplemented by heavy brackets, 
purely ornamental and serving no structural purpose. The overhang treatment of the 
Cowles house (1650-1660) and the Gleason house (1650-1660) in Farmington is typical 
of this arrangement. The gable ends of the latter house project as well, and originally had 
two brackets at each end. 

In the second stage the drops were retained, although the brackets behind them were 
discarded. The Moore house in Windsor (1664) and the Whitman house in Farmington 
(circa 1660) furnish us with examples of this phase. The Moore house still retains the 
brackets at one gable end, and it is not probable that the Whitman house ever had any. 
The drops of the Moore house, it is of considerable interest to note, are almost identical 
in form with those on a seventeenth-century house still standing in Hereford, England. 
One of the Moore house drops is shown in Plate IX. It will be seen from this illustration 
that the drop, though of curved contour, was four-sided. In this it is typical, for the rec- 
tangular form of the post above was always carried out in the pendant beneath it. 


64 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


During the last quarter of the seventeenth century the overhang, retained as an outward 
form, though of much diminished projection, underwent a radical change in its construc- 
tion. It was produced no longer by framing, but rather by hewing away the lower ends of 
the front posts, which became one continuous timber throughout their height. From Figure 
27 it will be seen that, because of this diminution in size at the first story, the exterior face 
of the posts projected in the second story. The overhang was thus reduced from feet to 
inches. When of this form, the overhang is said to be of the “hewn” type, and it became 
as common as the framed type is rare. 

It is evident that in Connecticut there were two schools of overhang construction: one 
which abruptly dropped the overhang before 1700; the other which retained it, though in 
much diminished form, until after 1775. The hewn type is, then, a descendant of the 
framed form—an American variation, structurally indigenous to this country. It is diffi- 
cult to find any evidence which will establish definitely when the hewn overhang first 
came into use. Inasmuch as it occurred commonly in the New Haven Colony and lingered 
on until, or after, 1700, its use there was plainly an affectation; for it could claim no 
descent from the framed form, which had never existed in that locality. 

When the overhang was of the hewn type, the tops of the posts were occasionally left 
exposed, just beneath the projection of the second story, and cut in the form of supporting 
corbels. Such treatment is rather rare; the Hollister house in Glastonbury (circa 1680) 
and the Caldwell house in Guilford (circa 1740) are two examples. (Plate X.) Unfor- 
tunately the corbels of the Hollister house do not appear as they did originally; for the 
house, in modern times, has been furred on the outside and given an additional covering 
of clapboards which partly covers this interesting construction, once entirely visible. 

A variation of this corbel form of treatment occurs on the front of the Hyland-Wild- 
man house in Guilford (circa 1660), where, in addition to the hewn corbels of the front 
posts, the first-story girts, handsomely chamfered with a bold moulding, are likewise ex- 
posed. (Plate X.) Such construction as this is decidedly unusual in Connecticut. 

The hewn overhang, which is never more than six inches, and was commonly but three or 
four, usually extended across the front of the house and on either end; later it appeared on 
the rear as well. It gradually dwindled until it was little more than an inch in projection, 
and finally, during the last quarter of the eighteenth century, disappeared altogether. It 
is a feature to be associated almost entirely with the central-chimney type of house, and it 
was the last lingering expression of seventeenth-century quaintness to be visible on the ex- 
terior of the Conecticut house. Its disappearance was brought about by the advent of the 
stately and formal houses of the central-hall type of plan, which echoed the comparative 
sophistication of the period which produced them. 

The persistence of the overhang, the tenacity with which it endured as a form of con- 
struction, is remarkable, especially if we stop to consider that, from a beginning based upon 
tradition pure and simple, it held sway through a period of nearly a hundred and fifty 
years. 











sE—GUILFORD 


ELL Hou 


CaLDW 


GLEAsSOoN HousE—FARMINGTON 





Ho.uisterR House—SoutH GLaAsTONBURY 


HyLanp-WILpMAN HousE—GUILFORD 


REATHeN. 





Be ESE SG Ne ESO HENGE TER Oe TERE RCI MRI Mop MeCN ES 


Chapter VI. The Summer 


F’ the numerous timbers which make up the framework of the early Connecticut 

house, none plays a more prominent part than the summer. It was not only im- 

portant structurally, but its exposed position helped to give it an added interest 
which other members, concealed from view, did not possess. 

The summer is an old form of construction, and, like its English prototype, almost in- 
variably extended from the outside wall across the room to the chimney. It is a regular 
feature of English work of the period under dis- 
cussion. The cottage plan shown in Figure 73 in- 
dicates it in its customary position. 

In Connecticut the summer beams were placed 
parallel with the front of the house. Examples 
are rare in which the summer runs in the opposite 
direction—that is, parallel with the chimney girts, 
from front to rear of the house. This arrange- 
ment, to be sure, does occur in the original part of 
the Hempstead house in New London (1643), 
the east front room of the Graves house in Madi- 
son (1675), and the Allyn house in Windsor 
(circa 1750). But this last house, which is of brick 
construction, can hardly be cited as an example, 
for it does not properly come under the head of timber construction. A combination of 
the two systems is to be seen in the Moore house in Windsor (1664). In this house, 
originally of two-room plan, each room had two summers, which were curiously crossed 
at the center. By exception to the usual rule, the summers in this house are not of oak, but 
of a native variety of hard pine. Curiously, both the Hempstead and the Graves houses, 
which have summers extending from front to rear in the rooms on one side of the chimney, 
display, in the other front rooms on the opposite side of the chimney, two summers parallel 
to each other and to the front of the house. (Figures 9 and 11.) 

As I stated in the chapter on framing, the ends of the summer, when it is in its con- 
ventional position, were framed into the end girt and the chimney girt by means of a dove- 
tail joint. (Figure 35.) The advantage of such construction lay in the fact that the summer 
could not sag beneath the floor loads transmitted to it through the joists, unless it first gave 
way at the ends. 

From the numerous illustrations of houses shown in cross section, it will be seen that in 
nearly every instance a second summer at the attic-floor level repeated that below it at the 
second-floor level. In framing and purpose it was identical with the one beneath it; and 





FIGURE 73. 


66 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


it was generally of the same size. Exceptions to this customary arrangement exist in many 
of the Stratford and Milford houses which are still standing to-day; for, while the second- 
floor summers occupy their usual exposed position against the ceilings of the first floor, no 
summer is visible in the second story. There is reason to believe that, in some cases, these 
second summers exist, though in reduced form; for two parallel cracks often indicate the 
presence of this beam beneath the plastering. 


Ted ‘ P hs - . 
a 0 
ha eee eel: 
Be Es JHYDDARD HOV/ES 
sate iy ea CDSG VLE On tae 


FIGURE 74. 


The vertical dimension or depth of the summer varied at different periods, but its width 
was usually in the neighborhood of twelve inches. The summer beams in the Allen Smith 
house in Milford (circa 1690) display the tremendous width of 17% inches; those of the 
Eri Bradley house in North Haven (circa 1730) measure but a half inch less. Both of 
these examples are unusually heavy; in fact, the entire framing of the Smith house is 
almost barbaric in its weight and massive crudeness. 

In early work, before the introduction of plastering, the summer, as well as the joists 
which were framed into it, was left exposed on the under side, being covered above by 


"IX @LVTg 


AYIHSAHD—asNOY] MOOOHO.LIF, TANOTOD 


AOCOUAAVS—daSNOFT LUvy 





i Sia, 





The Summer 67 


the floor which was laid over it. Where the summers were never cased or plastered over, 
the marks of the broad-ax are nearly always plainly visible, there having been, except for 
a slight chamfering of the lower corners, no further attempt at finishing. 

The chamfering is a characteristic treatment of the summer. It varies in different 
examples from a simple bevelling to a handsomely moulded finish, such as is to be seen 
in the Hubbard house in Guilford (1717). (Figure 74.) Very curiously, the chamfering 
of the summer beams of the Hubbard house is almost identical in section with that of the 
first-story front girts of the Hyland-Wildman house (circa 1660) in the same town, as may 
be seen from the exterior. (Plate X.) It is quite probable that both are the handiwork of 
the same craftsman. Such elaborate chamfering as this example exhibits is, however, unique. 
The boldness of its section makes it of exceptional interest. When the chamfer was of 
simpler form, much pleasing ingenuity was exercised in the manner of its termination at 
either end. The terminations or “chamfer stops,” as they were commonly styled, were for 
the purpose of preventing the chamfering from running into the girts into which the 
summer was dovetailed at either end. (Figure 75.) 


EN y Sar e244 1% ee 
Cir r 43 Nae, 
: a. \ ee es = - 

TE eee B= 
i eg 
= =) | nh Mili aa 

—— [i = —, Zor: 
; = —— I | iy! 






ZEIMRER COL Aan Let Aryalctey FLOW ik 
SDR ACALT) O20 
FIGURE 75. 


Plastering, which was absent from most of the earliest houses, brought about the casing 
of structural members, including the summer, which had formerly been exposed on the 
inside of the house. In fact, the use of plaster as a means of interior finish sounded the 
signal for the disappearance of the summer. This is especially true of the first floor, where 
plaster was first used; so that very often the summer does not appear exposed on the first 
floor, although it was retained on the second. Such an arrangement exists in the Caldwell 
house in Guilford (circa 1740). The use of the exposed summer in this way, on only the 
second floor, continued up to about 1750, after which time it was abandoned altogether. 
Probably because of the early use of plaster in the New Haven Colony, the omission of 


68 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


the summer, especially on the first floor, occurred there earlier than elsewhere. In other 
Connecticut settlements, the first- and second-story summers generally disappeared simul- 
taneously; although in Milford and Stratford a number of houses exist in which the 
summers show as described above, only in the first story. 

In many instances the summer persisted even after the advent of plastering. It was then 
made less in depth; so that it became concealed by the ceiling beneath it, although it still 
carried the ends of the joists as formerly. Where this arrangement exists, the presence 
of the summer may usually be detected by two tell-tale parallel cracks in the plaster, due 
to shrinkage or settlement. 








E+ /LYMOVR-STLLLE HOVE? 
VHARTFORD® 


| Ee 
AA" VATHROP Hov/et- 
*AORWICH 


ti Bees 
Ne pee TGVILFORD*? 






Figure 76. 





CPE FSG DEEN DE NIE RIDE ERIE Hee MERIDEN AY MEDI MORIN MRI MED 


Chapter VII. Masonry 


house of the period under consideration was built, practically always, without a 

cellar beneath it. In fact, this usage still persists in England. It is not surprising, 
then, to find under the earliest Connecticut houses cellars which extend beneath only a part 
of the structures above them. Often there was no direct communication between the cellar 
and the house itself, the entrance to the cellar being through an outside door or “hatchway” 
on the southern or more sheltered end of the house. Where this arrangement existed, 
the cellar is usually to be found beneath the hall or living room, which was always on the 
warmer side of the house. The Cyrus Hawley house, in Monroe, built about 1740, has 
such a cellar. It extends only beneath the living room, on the southern side of the house, 
and access to it is by means of an outside flight of stone steps down from grade to a door 
through the cellar wall. It is inaccessible from the interior of the house. 

The difficulty of excavating large and deep cellars must have been an important factor 
at first. That it was so is proved, indeed, not only by the fact that the excavation was but 
partial, but also by the fact that the early cellars were very shallow. The cellar bottom 
was, most often, simply of earth. Stone flagging or paving was evidently never popular in 
Connecticut. Where it does occur, it is as a part of late work; it rarely appears in houses 
built before the last quarter of the eighteenth century. Examples of such flagging may 
be seen in the cellar of the Miner Fowler house in Guilford, oun 1765, and in that of the 
Barnabas Deane house in Hartford, built in 1778. 

The cellar or foundation walls, as well as the substructure of the chimney stack, were 
invariably of stone. Material secured in the vicinity was nearly always employed; ordinary 
field stone appears to have been most commonly used. It was only in rare instances, or at 
a comparatively late date, that quarried stone was used in walls below grade. The marks 
of actual quarrying on cellar stones is extremely unusual. Such quarried stones were usually 
roughly split blocks of gneiss or stratified granite, taken from the outcropping ledges 
which are so common about Guilford and Norwich. The earliest evidence of such quarry- 
ing exists in the cellar of the Hempstead house in New London, which was begun in 
1643. From old records it appears that the quarrying of the abundant red sandstone in 
the region about Hartford was carried on at an early date. Stones used for foundation 
walls, then, were of two sorts, field and quarry; and the choice of material depended upon 
what the neighborhood had to offer. 

The foundation walls in the cellars of some houses contain a niche or recess of 10 or 12 
inches in depth, and 18 inches or 2 feet in width and height. Sometimes the recess occurs 
in the chimney foundation. It was evidently incorporated to provide a cool place for food 


oe recur once more to the subject of tradition, we find that the small English 


70 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


or preserves during the warmer months, though possibly it may have served some other 
purpose. 

The foundation walls of rough field stone, or split gneiss, were at first either “laid up 
dry”—that is, without mortar of any sort—or with clay as a substitute for mortar. This 
practice was probably due to the scarcity of lime and the difficulty of getting it. In the 
southern part of the state, and especially in towns situated near the Sound, where oyster 
shells were easily obtained and burned to produce lime, the use of regular mortar in the 
construction of masonry was earlier and more common. The masonry ends of that part of 
the Morris house at Morris Cove, near New Haven, which constitutes the original building 
(1670) are built of stones laid in mortar, the lime of which was obtained from oyster shells. 

Lime was used very early in New London and New Haven, and the records of the latter 
town for November 3, 1639, refer to it as follows: “It is ordered that Mr. Hopkins shall 
have two hogsheads of lime for his present use, and as much more as will finish his house 
as he now intends it.” In 1640 these records mention carting lime from the waterfront, 
from which we may infer that it was in use at that time, although produced elsewhere. A 
court order for June 11, 1640, fixed the price of lime as follows: “Lime well burnt un- 
slaked, and brought by water to the landing-place of the town, by the bushell heaped, not 
above 9d. the bushell.” 

Whether lime was ever brought from England is a point open to question; I per- 
sonally doubt it. The early court records of New Haven repeatedly refer to the “oyster 
shell field,” which was situated east of State Street, between Chapel and George. It was 
probably an Indian refuse heap, similar to the extensive one still in existence at Light- 
house Point, near New Haven. Certainly oyster shells were abundant; and, with such 
a supply of raw material at hand, it is improbable that the importation of lime was ever 
resorted to, especially since we find oyster-shell lime to have been a component of the 
mortar in very early work. 

Throughout the state, clay was used, in the majority of cases, as a substitute for mortar 
in the construction of the massive stone chimney stacks. It was employed to fill the joints 
throughout the chimney’s* height and up to its point of emergence through the roof. 
Above the roof, lime mortar was used, for rain would quickly have washed the clay out 
of the exposed joints. The remarkably good condition to-day of work in the construction 
of which clay was used originally, is due, no doubt, more to the careful bonding of the 
stonework and its general massiveness than to any virtue of the clay as a mortar. Some con- 
sideration must be given to the fact, however, that the heat of fires maintained, some of 
them, for two hundred years has done much to bake or harden this substitute for mortar. 

Owing to the custom of keeping the first-floor level close to grade, the height of ex- 
posed underpinning between the earth and the sills was never great. Even in early work, 
if the house were high enough above grade to expose the underpinning, a rough attempt 
was generally made to dress the stone blocks to regular shape and to lay them in courses. 


* It should be noted that in early times “chimney” meant flue, whereas the word “chimney,” as we use it to-day 
meant stack. 




















BartTLETT HousE—GvuILFoRD 


Ossporn HousE—SouUTHPORT 








Chass Seg pee ¥ 
Ke ss 


%s 
Be 


ee 
aoa 


hf f 
j f praesent 


if 


GrISwOLD HousE—GUuILFORD 


SHELTON HousE—STRATFORD 


Puate XII. 





Masonry 71 


Generally this treatment occurred only across the front of the house, the underpinning of 
the other three walls being left rough. In very late work, regular blocks of carefully 
dressed red Portland sandstone were commonly used for the underpinning. Brick was 
occasionally used for this purpose in the construction of late houses, but rarely before the 
first half of the eighteenth century. Brick underpinning may be regarded as, on the whole, 
unusual, regular quarried stone having been employed in preference. The earliest instance 
of the use of brick for underpinning, so far as is known, is the Meggatt house in Wethers- 
field, built in 1730. The underpinning of the Burrage Merriam house in Rocky Hill 
(circa 1760) is of brick, the individual measurements of which are 7 by 134 by 336 inches. 
From Revolutionary times onward the underpinning received much attention. In most 
of the houses it was well and carefully built, and material for its construction was often 
brought from considerable distances. A typical stone from the underpinning of the Orton 
house, built in Farmington about 
1698, and now demolished, is shown 7-3 
in Figure 77. The material is a variety 


Medeor and ts). 


(oe 


measurements are 7 feet 3 inches in 
length by 1 foot in height. The ex- 
posed face of the stone has been cut 
with false joints of V-shaped section, 
which subdivide it into a number of FIGURE 77. 

rectangular blocks. 

The most important piece of masonry in connection with the house, was, of course, the 
chimney stack. The amount of stone used in its construction was very great, and the sheer 
mass of this tremendous pile of masonry is astounding, when as has sometimes happened, 
the house has collapsed and the chimney stack remains standing, a monument to mark its 
site. (Plate XV.) The massive chimney stack is especially characteristic of the central- 
chimney houses, the builders of which used stone with lavish hands. After the transition to 
the central-hall or two-chimney plan, the mass of the chimney stacks became comparatively 
much smaller. More imposing in size than even the stack of the chimney at the first-floor 
level was its foundation in the cellar. Chimney foundations 10 and 12 feet square, and 
even larger, are not uncommon. The upper part of the foundation was often corbelled 
out to provide a bearing, not only for the hearthstones above, but also for the timbers 
extending from the front to the rear sills, into which the first-floor joists were framed. 
(Plate XIV.) 

Occasional chimney foundations are found, such as those in the Ripley house in South 
Coventry (1792), which contain a large vault-like space. The opening to each of these 
spaces (there is one in each chimney, the house being of central-hall plan), is just above 
the cellar bottom, and about eighteen inches square. The chimney foundations of the Grant 
house in Windsor (1757-1758) were traversed by a barrel vault, built of brick, and extend- 
ing from front to rear. This is a rare feature. A somewhat similar arrangement of chimney 





are Or Beer JOIAT® 


72 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


vaulting existed in the Tuttle 
house in West Hartford (circa 
1700) until recent years, and may 
still be seen in the Captain John- 
son house in Hamburg (1790). 
Each of these houses is of central- 
chimney plan, with the chimney 
divided on the first floor so that 
a fireplace occurs in each front 
room. By means of a barrel vault 
at the height of the first-floor ceil- 
ing, the two flues were brought 
together, and from that point con- 
tinued upward as a single stack. 
(Figure 78.) In the Tuttle house, 
this *space in the chimney was 
occupied by the stairs to the second 
Be ae . 
= n some instances chimney 
r— | stacks were constructed of stone 
f Vavir Over up to the second-floor level, and 
x ae from that point carried up in brick. 
The chimney of the Bradley-Ty- 
& & ler house in East Haven (circa 
| | | 1745) is an example of this con- 
i struction. More commonly, the 
stack was built of stone up to the 
LS Sue attic-floor level or to the under 
Sag elle Pee ater side of the roof, and “topped out” 
with brick. In many instances the 
* Finyt FLrloor PLA + brick above the roof replaced an 
earlier termination of stone. A 
characteristic of chimney construc- 
Ficure 78. tion of the central-hall type of 
house is the use of stone up to the 
level of the attic floor, above which the stack is built of brick, often simply laid in clay. 
The treatment of a chimney above the roof with pilaster-like projections, such as are to 
be seen frequently in Rhode Island and Massachusetts work, seldom occurred in Connecti- 
cut. (Plate XII.) Some old drawings of the old tavern kept by Moses Butler at the corner 
of Main and Elm Streets and of the Saunders house which stood on Charter Oak Avenue, in 
Hartford, do, however, show a treatment of this sort. The use of one or more “saw-tooth” 





PS CAPTAIN JOHNSON HOVYI-HAMDYRG SF 





Hate HousE—SoutH GLAsTONBURY 


WEBSTER HousE—East WINDSOR 





CoLoNEL BARKER HousE—NortH Haven 


CHAFFEE HousE—WINDSOR 


Puate XIII. 





, 
Yo 


we, 





Masonry 73 


courses, formed by setting the brick diagonally with one corner exposed, is occasionally 
to be seen, though it is a rare feature. The Talcott house which stood in Glastonbury is 
probably the only example of the use of the saw-tooth course projecting from the face of 
the chimney without a projecting brick course above and below it. 

It is probable that in the early days of the colony some chimneys were constructed of 
logs laid crosswise, or “cob fashion,” or of wattles. Such chimneys, even though thickly 
plastered on the inside with clay, were dangerous, and necessitated the most scrupulous 
attention by the “chimney-viewers.” The Hartford records of 1639 mention chimneys of 
clay as well as of brick; so that there can be no question as to the existence of clay chimneys. 

In the earliest houses the center of the stack was invariably carried up behind the main 
roof ridge, and the chimney was long and narrow, its length being parallel with the ridge. 

The small oval-shaped bake ovens built in connection with the kitchen fireplace (or 
that of the hall, if the house were of two-room plan) were generally constructed of 
brick, even when the rest of the chimney was built of stone. This use of brick may be due 
to the fact that such ovens were often built in at a date later than that of the chimney 
itself. The floor of the oven was usually placed at a height of about three feet from the 
floor, and the oven itself measured approximately 30 inches in depth by 18 inches in width, 
though examples occur which are much larger. These ovens were domed over with brick— 
a piece of construction which was always very nicely executed. The floors were sometimes 
of brick also, but more often they were formed by single slabs of stone. Beneath the oven 
is usually found a recessed chamber, built into the chimney stack, probably for the storage 
of cooking utensils or wood. (Plate XX XVIII.) As these ovens had no connection with the 
chimney flues, they were used for baking by filling them with glowing wood embers from 
the adjoining fireplace. After the walls had become thoroughly heated the coals were raked 
out, and the food to be baked was placed inside. The opening was then tightly closed and 
the oven left to do its work, on much the same principle as the modern “fireless cooker.” 

Like its English prototype, the fireplace of the early Connecticut house was of generous 
proportions. Depended upon for heat as well as for cooking, it was naturally the center 
of domestic life, “the warm heart whose glow cheered the household.” The largest fire- 
place in the house was usually that of the kitchen, when the house was of the lean-to type. 
That of the Welles-Shipman house in Glastonbury (1750) measures 9 feet 5 inches in 
width by 4 feet 6 inches in height. It is three feet deep and contains two brick ovens. The 
kitchen fireplace of the Freeman Curtis house in Stratford (1710) is 7 feet 7 inches wide 
by 3 feet 8 inches high. The hall fireplace of the Buckingham house in Milford, which 
is said to have been built in 1639, measured, before the addition of a brick oven at one end, 
+ feet 8 inches in width by 3 feet 9 inches in height; and that of the Hyland-Wildman 
house in Guilford (circa 1660) 8 feet 5 inches in width by 3 feet 10 inches in height. 
These large fireplaces are invariably built of roughly dressed stone, brick construction 
indicating work of a later date. The other fireplaces of the first floor (there is always one 
in each front room) were smaller, and the dimensions of those on the second floor were 
still less. It is not at all unusual to find one of the front chambers of the second floor, 


74 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


where the house is of central-chimney plan, without a fireplace; and a fireplace in the 
“kitchen chamber” is rather the exception than the rule. 

The cellar fireplace is an extremely rare feature, but it does occasionally occur. The 
Martin Page house in Branford (circa 1750) and the Danforth house in Rocky Hill (circa 
1770), both of central-chimney plan, have fireplaces in their cellars. The Captain Charles 





ROOT We Rte 















vy SECTION A-Ae 


Pagar 


wy Lett NOVA D a De 








“SECTIO & tote 















































~ OHA LoL SPAR Peek ane 
S DVCKLYA G8 AM WO Veer Seo raree. 


FIGURE 79. 


Churchill house (1763), which stood in Newington, contained an immense fireplace in the 
cellar, built into the central chimney. This fireplace was of such ample dimensions that it 
was possible, according to tradition, to roast a whole ox therein at one time. A cellar fire- 
place of very large size also exists in the Joel Bradley house in North Haven (1759). 

A great many fireplaces of small dimensions are the result of work done later than the 
original house-building; and this is especially true of small fireplaces with brick sides. 
For various reasons the original fireplace was at some time considered to be too large, and 


Masonry 75 


its size was accordingly reduced by the construction of a new back and sides, the original 
height generally being retained. Such changes often took place at the time when the fire- 
place walls were panelled. 

Where all the fireplaces were constructed at the same time, it was customary, so far as 
is known, to carry up the flue of each so that all met or emerged into a common flue in the 
upper part of the chimney. All the flues were large, but no form of flue lining was ever 
employed. The chimney of the Captain Charles Churchill house in Newington (1763) 
was of unusual construction, so a descendant of the family states, in that it contained no 
less than seven flues, each of which was carried up to the top independently of the others. 
Mr. Sheldon Thorpe of North Haven states that each of the end chimneys of the Joel 
Bradley house in that town (1759) has two or three separate flues. 



































| car a a 
‘a ee CR 

{in 

Ny I i i i ee 
alll | 







































































SORTER HOVSE-WLST PRRTFORI A 


FicureE 80. 


Stone was generally used in building the sides and back of the fireplace; but the parlor 
fireplace was often faced with common red brick. It was not until about 1800 that the use 
of brick for all the fireplaces became general. When the fireplace opening was of too 
great a width to be conveniently spanned by a stone lintel, a squared timber of oak was 
used instead. In regions where stone was scarce or difficult to quarry, such oak lintels were 
used even for small openings. Wood lintels were often very heavy; for instance, that in 
the kitchen of the “White Farm” at Long Ridge measures 174 inches deep by 10 inches 
wide. Those in the older Bushnell house in Saybrook (1678-1679) are 15 inches deep by 
12 inches wide. Where wood was so employed, its height above the hearth seems usually 
to have been sufficient to protect it from taking fire. Where the lintel of the fireplace was 
of stone, the ends were often placed upon templates or bearing blocks of wood. The reason 
for this measure is not clear, unless it was to prevent the lintel from rolling or changing 
its position during any possible settlement of the chimney subsequently to its construction. 
The fact that these bearing timbers of the fireplace lintel are often continued right through 


76 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


the chimney, to serve a similar purpose on the opposite side, rather indicates that this was 
actually the purpose of such an arrangement. 

Heavy hewn timbers, sometimes with mortise holes, or the marks of having been pre- 
viously used in the construction of an older building, are often to be found built into the 
cellar foundations of stone chimneys. The purpose of the builders in using this device was 
undoubtedly to secure a better bond, the large timbers serving to tie the whole mass of 
stonework more firmly together. 

The front and back hearths were most often of flat stone slabs, one piece serving for 
each. The front hearth, which finished level with the wood floor, is always of greater width 
on the first than on the second floor—a fact explained by the support afforded the first- 
floor hearth by the foundations of the chimney in the cellar below. It was customary to 
corbel or build out the base of the chimney stack in order not only to carry the hearth- 
stones of the first floor, but also to provide a support for the cellar chimney girts. 


PCN ALY Girt SYAAER 


| ——————————————— = 7 
Ran | 
| 


a 


SERPS EES SE ae eH | : is ay 
——————| PLASTER 











Be | as 


af ROR VON Ao ALT 





SECTION 
.. OF) Haag ares 














aaa J te Age eee 
[a (I [a a a eh 
Britk 





Floor 7: 





v TERE PL Amtubuee 
/ OLVER WILLIAMS HOVS PY Wit eh eee te 


FIGuRE 81. 


Masonry ais 


The use of brick or square tile for hearth construction appears to have been unusual; at 
any rate, it is a late usage. Brick hearths do occur where stone fireplaces have been narrowed 
and new brick ovens built in, as in the halls of two-room-plan houses, and in the kitchens 
of houses of the lean-to type. 

An unusual instance on record involves the employment of an old tombstone, with the 
inscription side up, as a hearth stone. The house was that built by Captain Charles Churchill 
in Newington in 1763 (now demolished). This odd hearth was that of the fireplace in the 
second-floor kitchen chamber. One of the second-story fireplaces of the older Williams 
house in Wethersfield, built circa 1680, has a very curious form of hearth. (Figure 81.) It 
is cut from a single piece of brownstone or “Portland Stone,” and its top is raised above 
the floor a distance of seven inches. A bevel-edged rim prevented coals or ashes from drop- 
ping off on to the wooden floor. 

It was not until the latter 
half of the eighteenth century 
that colored glazed tiles, usu- 
ally of Dutch origin, were 
made use of for facing the 
fireplace opening. They were 
never commonly used in Con- 
necticut; and often they are 
a later addition. It is only in 
the more elaborate and finely 
built houses that we find the Figure 82. 
fireplaces framed by moulded 
stone architraves, as in the parlor of the Silas Deane house in Wethersfield, built 1764. 
(Plate XXXIV.) A much simpler form of stone architrave is that of the parlor fireplace of 
the Henry Deming house, Wethersfield, built 1790, which consists of several moulded 
members and an incised conventional pattern of ornament. (Figure 170.) The use of mar- 
ble as a facing is not to be expected save in extremely late houses, dating after 1800. 

As all the cooking of the earlier houses was done at the fireplaces, the wrought-iron 
crane, with its dependencies of pot-hooks and trammels, is generally found, in hall and 
kitchen fireplaces, supported by two iron eyes fastened into the masonry at one side. An 
earlier arrangement is the simple bar of iron built into the masonry at each end, from 
which pots and kettles were hung. 

Another feature in connection with the chimney stack is the smoke chamber or “smoke 
oven” found in the attic—an ingenious arrangement by means of which the smoke ascend- 
ing the chimney flues was utilized for curing meats. For safety’s sake, the door to the 
chamber was usually made of sheet iron. The smoke chamber is not an early feature, and 
it is generally found only in the more elaborate houses. 

The chimney top of the General Walker house in Stratford, built about 1740, is shown 
in Figure 82. A recessed niche about 18 inches square and three or four inches deep was built 





78 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


into the stonework on the front side, and traces of plaster or stucco still clinging to the stones 
show that it was carefully finished on the inside, for some purpose or other—possibly so 
that the family arms or the date of building could be painted on it. 

Since flashing was not employed by the early builders as we use it to-day, it was necessary 
to resort to some other expedient in order to make a water-tight joint between the roof 
and the chimney. This was done by projecting a thin course of stone, or a course of brick, 
for a distance of about three inches just above the point of intersection with the roof, so 
that the shingles could be tucked underneath. This measure proved fairly rain-proof. 

In sectional plan above the roof line, the oldest chimneys were long and narrow, the 
long axis being parallel with the ridge. The later chimneys became more nearly square, 
but the mass of the chimney stack still generally remained behind the ridge. 

When the original house was of two-room plan and a lean-to containing a kitchen was 
added, a new flue was made necessary. Such additions to the chimney stack are always 
easily traced, especially as the work was often very clumsily done. The chimney, where it 
appeared above the roof, became L- or T-shaped in plan—one of the surest indications 
that the lean-to, where it exists, was a later addition. (Figure 82.) 

From available evidence it is clear that the use of brick in chimney building began to 
appear during the last quarter of the seventeenth century, in New Haven and Hartford. 
In remote places where brick were not manufactured or readily obtainable, the use of stone 
persisted until late. In localities such as Guilford and Norwich, for example, where stone 
was plentiful, brick never became popular for chimney building. 

Old records show that brick were manufactured at a very early date both in Hartford 
and New Haven, and there is some reason to believe that they were imported into New 
Haven. Atwater mentions a brickmaker in his list of “house-holders” of New Haven 
during 1641-1643. Brick were made, soon after the founding of the colony, from the clay 
underlying the Quinnipiac marshes; for Theophilus Eaton’s brickyard at “East Farms” 
(now Cedar Hill) was transferred at his death in 1658 to Thomas Yale. The New Haven 
Court Records for 1644 mention “bringing bricks from the brickills in the plains”; and 
those for 1651 contain the following passage: “John Benham informed the Court that 
when this plantation was first begun, he was by the Authority then settled here, sent forth 
to looke for claye to make brickes, wherein he spent as much time as was worth twenty 
shillings, Wch he thinkes the towne should allow him... .” 

Early brick were very often soft and light in color and either larger or smaller than 
our brick of to-day. The first brick were evidently very large; the standard size then be- 
came smaller, but was finally increased to approximately that of the modern product. In- 
vestigations show that there was considerable variation in size in different localities, even at 
the same time. The brick used in the underpinning of the Burrage Merriam house in 
Rocky Hill (circa 1760) measure 134 by 338 by. 7 inches. There is reason to believe that 
these brick were first used in an earlier building. The brick of which the Robbins house, 
Rocky Hill (1767), were built measure 234 by 4 by 8% inches. Every fourth course of 
the brickwork of this house is made up of alternate “headers and stretchers.” The brick 


NIX aLvid 


AULNAAOD HLNOS—asnoY FIV AWA J—asnoY Aad 





TH ONOJ—,.WaV yy ALIHM,, AWAY] Lsvy—asnoy @aqT 


ce 





Wy 


a. 
Cera 
" J ’ 





Masonry 


79 


of which the old mill house or “Elm Fort” at Suffield are built measure 2 by 4 by 8 inches. 
Every sixth course is made up of headers, of which every alternate brick is a black or 


semi-vitrified brick from the arch of the kiln. 
(Figure 83.) Brick used for filling between the 
studs of the exterior walls of the Isaac North 
house, Berlin (circa 1735), are 2% by 4% by 
814 inches in size. They are laid on edge, in clay 
mortar. Brick which were similarly used in the 
Deacon Tuttle house, in West Hartford (circa 
1700), measure 236 by 414 by 836 inches. 
(Figure 84.) The dimensions of a brick from 
the Moulthrop house in East Haven (circa 
1690) are 19% by 2% by 6% inches. Brick used 
in the construction of the Samuel Webster house 
in East Windsor Hill (1787) are of two sizes, 
one 2 by 3% by 734 inches, the other 2% by 
43% by 10% inches. 





ae 

yea a a ci 
——— == ea aa ee 
[Sine pees ee 


SCRE 


a Ee eee ao S 
QPS SO =a 


Seb Osten AOD Rt ¥2) WALL 


Peer ot. SV ETE tp 


Ficure 83. 


Brick houses were rarely built before 1750; but about that time they appear to have be- 
come popular in localities where brick were abundant. The brickwork of these houses is 
very often found to be of “Flemish bond”—that is, alternate headers and stretchers, the 
headers being of black brick, burned in the hottest part of the kiln. Such houses usually 
have a roof of the gambrel type; and a common feature was the insertion of the date of 





the building, in dark header 
brick, in one of the gable 
ends. The Joel Bradley 


22 BRR ee ey house in North Haven 







LEaAAtTO Roor 


INSITE 


Bevel le Late e HONS Le NAL NH ReR SY FLO 8s Ta, 


Ficure 84. 


(1759) is a good example. 
(Plate I.) 
Another noteworthy fea- 


hee ei eae. e ture in connection — with 


aig Ox Loat : : 
(er iat oebrickworke 1s the Use of a 


moulded course of brick in 
order to give a pleasing line 
to the offset of four inches 
which usually occurred be- 
tween the underpinning and 
the walls of the first story. 
(Figure 85.) Brick of this 
Goresare -to=besséen in tne 
base course of the building 
known as “Old South Mid- 


80 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


dle,” on the Yale Campus in New Haven. The contour of such brick, which were espe- 
cially moulded for this purpose, is a reverse curve, very pleasing. 

In some houses of frame construction the practice was resorted to, as I have already 
mentioned in passing, of filling the spaces between the studs of the outside walls with 
brick, for the purpose of warmth and protection. When the Orton house in Farmington, 
built about 1698, was demolished recently, it was found that all the exterior walls were 






a 
iy 


Ficure 85. 


brick-filled. The brick, however, were merely made of sun-dried clay, and were so soft 
that they could be broken in one’s hands. They were, of course, protected from the weather 
by the outside covering of clapboards. The spaces between the studs of the exterior walls 
of the Isaac North house near Berlin (circa 1735) are solidly filled with brick, which were 
laid in clay mortar. These brick are not sun-baked, but kiln-fired. Instead of brick used in 
this fashion, some very old houses have exterior walls which are filled with clay between 
the studs. The Lyons house, on the Post Road near Greenwich (circa 1670), is an example. 
(Plate II.) There is also a tradition concerning the use of eel-grass filling in the outside 
walls of framed houses to secure greater warmth, but it is doubtful if this practice was ever 
employed to any great extent in Connecticut. 

















TT cl 





Hytanp-WiLpman HousE—GUILFORD 





WarRNER HousE—CHESTER CHIMNEY OF A CoLLAPsED HousE—— 
CHESHIRE 


BiIATERAV. 





— 


DEE GD PENSE EY EEN HSN MeO RA pI ERAN Hepa Mee MR 


Chapter VIII. The Outside Covering 


touched upon in a previous chapter, and the possible existence considered of 

half-timbered work similar to that in England. There is every reason, and some 
documentary evidence as well, for believing that this type of construction was employed 
to some degree in the earliest attempts at building. The half-timbered work of England, 
consisting of a filling of “cob,” a mixture of clay and chopped straw, between the timbers 
of the exterior framework, might endure in England for years, comparatively unharmed 
by the gently falling rains of that country. It was protected, moreover, by the widely pro- 
jecting eaves of the thatch roofs. But it is obvious that exterior walls of such composition 
were not well suited to endure for long the rigors of an American climate. If it were 
successfully to withstand the driving storms of American shores, a protection of some 
sort over the exterior framework was indispensable. 

The earliest form of such covering of which we have evidence or find any record is to 
be seen in the split oak clapboards which still exist in place on some of the oldest houses. 
In many houses of the added lean-to type, an inspection of the lean-to attic reveals, still 
in place, the old oak clapboards which originally covered the rear wall of the main house. 

Such clapboards were “riven” or split from short oak logs, usually from four to six feet 
in length, by means of a special tool called a froe. This tool was very much like a knife, 
with a heavy broad blade about fifteen inches long, except that the handle, which was of 
wood, was offset and turned up at right angles to the blade. In making clapboards, a log 
was stood on end and split in half with this tool. Each half was again split into halves, and 
then into quarters, eighths, and so on, until a number of thin pieces had been produced. 
Owing to the radial plan of splitting, each piece was wedge-shaped in section: that is, 
one edge of the clapboards came to a thin or “feather” edge, while the other, or butt side, 
was from three-eighths to a half inch in thickness. It is evident that, because of this manner 
of splitting each section through the center of the log, the cleavage was in the plane of the 
medullary rays; so that each clapboard exhibited the markings characteristic of what is 
known to-day as “quartered oak.” 

Such clapboards of riven oak were, almost without exception, nailed directly to the studs, 
and the ends, which necessarily met upon a vertical stud, were bevelled and lapped in order 
to make the joint more nearly weatherproof. (Figure 86.) 

The New Haven Court Records for June 11, 1640, mention clapboards in lengths of 
four, five, and six feet. Their market value was fixed as follows: “Hewing and nailing them 
(clapboards) on the roofes and sides of houses, well done not worth above 5s. P hundred, 
butt as most are done, not worth above 2s 6d.” From this it is evident that the use of 
clapboards was not at first limited, as later, to the walls alone. 


Yr AHE construction of the very earliest houses of Connecticut has already been 


82 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


In width the early oak clapboards varied considerably, different specimens measuring 
from 434 to 8¥4 inches. The commonest width appears to have been about five inches, and 
the “weather,” or exposed surface, about four inches; so that the lap was about an inch. 
Wider specimens were of course laid with a greater exposure to the weather. 

The word “clapboard” is a provincial English term, derived from the Low German 
“Klappholt” (Klappen = clap, and Holt = wood). It originally referred, in sixteenth- 
and seventeenth-century English, to an oak stave used in cooperage. “Clapboards,” or bolts 
of oak, were at that time imported to England from Germany, to be manufactured into 
barrel staves. They were also used to some extent for wainscoting. The German source of 
this material accounts for the derivation of the name. 





Rasen OVA RK 
CRAP DON RTS 


Ficure 86. 


It is probable that the colonists, finding an abundance of oak at their disposal, set about 
the manufacture of “clapboards” for cask staves for export to England or the West Indies. 
In fact, early New, Haven documents mention “pipe staves, clapboards and tar” as being 
the first articles of export from that colony. This traffic evidently soon gave rise to fear 
that it might cause a shortage of lumber, for the New Haven Court Records for 1640 make 
mention of a fine imposed for “selling clapboards”; and in the following year, 1641, a 
law was passed limiting the dimensions of pipe staves. . 

It was apparently a short and easy step to modify these “‘clapboards” or pipe staves into 
the form which the word implies to-day, for use as a covering over the exterior house 
framework. A form of clapboard may be found in England on old work, but it is very 
doubtful if its use in Connecticut was at all traditional. 

A somewhat later form of oak clapboard than the riven sort is shown in Figure 87. 


“TAX JLVvIdg 


Ssndooy[—asnoH dan qaosr TI N£)—asnopY dOHslg 






































qaOALVULS—dasnNoH ATWHOUIV 7 aTAIAUIV ¥Y—aAsSnNopy ddVNY 








The Outside Covering 


83 


Clapboards of this variety were more regular in form, for instead of being split they were 
sawn out and in addition planed on the outside, the lower edge being finished with a one- 
half- or five-eighths-inch bead. Like riven clapboards, they were applied directly to the 
studs, and the butts lapped. Similar clapboards, said to be the original covering, are still in 


place on the exterior walls of the 
Thomas Buckingham house in Milford, 
for which the date of 1639 is claimed. 
There are also to be found in certain 
regions, as a covering of very old houses, 
broad boards of white pine, three- 
fourths or seven-eighths of an inch in 
thickness, applied directly to the studs. 
The horizontal edges of such boarding 
have bevelled joints, so that the outside 
finish is flush. (Figure 88.) The Hurd 
house, in Moodus (1760) (Plate XVI), 
is completely covered with boarding of 


this variety. In the lean-to attic of the + LU ape ted tenn penned 


Loomis house in Windsor (1688), bevel- 
edged boards of width varying from 12 
to 15 inches may still be seen covering 
the rear wall of the original main house. 







i] 
1, | 
(o} 
Day, 
me 


°o 
> 
6 
| 
oO 
NaN 
oe ps 







; SSSotint CLES 





So aa ae a HY ” 
St at eee NI G3 
~~ t=—N 
A = 
H 
AI 
OE ee on Hy 
sa Ss J 
“SECTIOA A-A: : ~ = | 
| 


vA at {LOCA 


Ficure 87. 


A far commoner form of outside covering, not peculiar to any particular period, is that 
generally known as “weather-boarding.” From Figure 89 it will be seen that weather 
boarding consisted of wide boards of white pine, usually about a foot in width and seven- 


eighths of an inch in thickness, applied to 
the studs in horizontal courses. The lower 
_ edge of each course, which in late work 
was beaded, was set into a rabbet cut in 
the upper edge of the course below it. 
“Weather boarding,” as the old records 
have it, was sawn out, and its exposed sur- 
face planed as well. It was never so com- 
monly used as clapboards. It often occurs 
on the ends and rear walls of houses, the 
fronts of which were clapboarded. The 
Bradley-Tyler house in East Haven (circa 
1745) and the Tyler-Palmer house in 
Branford (circa 1710) are examples of 
this treatment. In general, weather-board- 
ing is characteristic of late work. In such 


[x 





Ficure 88. 


TERIOR 





Se ESCNTI IS CON 


84 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


work it was often applied in graduated courses, the lowest course being the widest, and 
each one above it decreasing slightly in width or “weather.” 

During the first quarter of the eighteenth century the use of white pine superseded 
that of oak as a material for outside covering; and it is doubtful if the use of riven oak 
clapboards continued after that time. White pine, where exposed to the weather, was more 
durable than oak; and this fact, together with its better working qualities, commended it 
to the early builders. They did not restrict themselves to the use of white pine, however, 
for clapboards have been found 
which were made of white cedar, 
whitewood, and hard pine or 
tamarack. 

About the middle of the eight- 
eenth century the custom of 
graduating clapboards, or vary- 
ing their exposure, came into 
STYD vogue. Narrow clapboards were 
used at the sill, increasing 
slightly in width with successive 
courses; or, more often, the ex- 
posure was simply varied, the 
clapboards all being of the same 
width. Thus we find, on the 
front of the Samuel Mather 
house in Old Lyme (circa 1770), 

FicureE 89. clapboards laid with an exposure 

of 17% inches at the level of the 

sills, with a slight increase in each course above, so that at a height of ten feet above grade, 

the weather measures 214 inches. The maximum exposure is of course just below the cor- 

nice, where it measures 34% inches. The old custom of lapping the ends of the clapboards 

with a bevelled joint persisted until this time; for it is a feature which almost invariably 
accompanies this system of graduation. 

The object of the graduation, inasmuch as it was mainly confined to the fronts of 
houses and is rarely to be found on the sides and never on the rear, was obviously decora- 
tive. It is true, of course, that narrow exposure nearest grade meant a wider lapping of 
unexposed surfaces, and consequently greater warmth and security from driving storms; 
but had this been the main object, the practice would have been continued on all four sides 
of the house, as it never was. 

The use of shingles as a wall covering of early houses is unusual, except in the towns of 
Milford, Stratford, and the surrounding locality, where it appears to have been the rule. 
The shingles used in this region, made of white pine, were of great length; specimens 
still in place measure three feet and over. In breadth they vary from 6 to 10 inches, and 





LLL TLD 






LLL 


WN 








Morris HousE—NeEw Haven 


ParpDEE HousE—MontTowEsE 

















KNELL HousE—STRATFORD 


BRADLEY HousE—NeEw Haven 


Prare XV IT. 


Ce ice | re 





3° a Fhe Oe tage ae 
at ’ aA 
- 
, 
{ 
’ 
5 





The Outside Covering 85 


the butts are from one-half to three-fourths of an inch in thickness. The exposure or 
“weather” varies, but is in the general neighborhood of eight or ten inches. The shingles 
which cover the Mallet house in Stratford (circa 1690) are laid with an exposure of four- 
teen inches; those on the Shelton house in the same town (1760) show an exposure of nine 
inches. The exterior walls of the Lyon house on the Boston Post Road, near Greenwich 
(circa 1670), are covered with hand-shaved shingles of white pine, laid with an exposure 
of about sixteen inches to the weather. (Plate 
II.) These shingles, which are claimed to be the 
original ones, are of uniform width, and cut in 
semicircular form at the butt end. Like those of 
the Mallett and the Shelton houses, they are 
secured with hand-wrought nails. In every case 
such shingles were cut out by hand, probably 
having been roughly split out at first, and then 
more carefully finished with a draw-shave. The ‘tsreoarrs, 
durability of these shingles, used on vertical 
surfaces, is astonishing. Those covering the 
Knell house in Milford, built in 1664, are said 
to be the ones originally applied when the house 
was constructed. They are still in good condi- 
tion, considering the weather they have endured 
with no other protection than an occasional coat 
of whitewash. (Plate XVII.) 

The New Haven Court Records for June 11, 
1640, fixed the following prices for shingles: 
“Good stuff, 34 of an inch, and 6, 7, or 8 inches FiGurE 90. 
broad, sorted in the woods, being 3 foote 3s 2d 
P hundred. 2 foote 2s. 14 inches 1s P hundred.” According to Thorpe (History of North 
Haven), oak, chestnut, and cedar were all used for the manufacture of shingles, as stated 
in the old records. He also states that when the original shingles were removed from the 
roof of the Joel Bradley house in that town (1759) some years ago, they were found to 
be of split oak, finished on one side with a draw-shave. 

The rear walls of very late houses, built about 1800 or after, were often covered, espe- 
cially beneath porches, with seven-eighths-inch white pine boards, tongued and grooved, 
and generally beaded at the joints. Such boards were applied directly to the studs. Often 
they were of great width. Some on the rear wall of the Hale house in Glastonbury (circa 
1770) measure twenty-eight inches. These boards were always horizontally applied; but 
the joints were not always level, because of the unequal widths of boards at opposite ends. 
Usually the joints run level, however, though the different courses may vary in breadth. 

In certain regions, especially in and about New Haven, occasional houses built between 
1800 and the beginning of the Greek Revival period have clapboarded sides and rear, 


QYOIN 





ee OniOny fleas 1h / BY hy S 


86 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


and fronts covered with matched white pine boards from six to eight inches in width, hori- 
zontally applied. Two New Haven houses, the Beers house (1815) (Plate XVIII) and the 
Bradley house (circa 1820), are good examples of this treatment. The arrangement, though 
in itself bald, emphasizes to great advantage the fine detail about doors and windows, such 
as is characteristic of that period. But it was the builder’s idea to give the appearance of 
masonry to a wooden design; and this falseness or insincerity of construction marks the 
beginning of the decadent period. In a way the arrangement was nevertheless an effective 
one. It has its exact counterpart in the “Plateresque” work of Spain, where exterior walls 
were kept absolutely plain, and an abundance of richly wrought detail was lavished about 
door and window openings. 


SELTA Xs ch 


NOLNIT())—dsNOH NOLNVLS XaSSY—aASNOH NaAGdAvY 






























































Pea 





BE SEE SE ERNE DO RITE TERI DE NON MRI MRS MERE ERIIDE HS 


Chapter [X. Windows 


for the admittance of light and air were few and small, and that for several reasons. 

First, houses were the only havens of refuge in time of sudden Indian attacks, and 
small window openings made houses more secure. Glass was a rare and expensive article, 
difficult to get and hard to replace. As the available quantity was limited, this fact also 
had its influence in determin- 
ing the size of early windows. 
Oiled paper and cloth were 
probably used to some extent, 
but only for a brief period and 
in the smaller houses. 

There is but little doubt 
that the earliest windows were 
of the casement type. The 
New Haven Court Records 
for November 14, 1651, con- 
tain the following: “It is de- 
sired that the casements of the 
Meeting-house may haue the 
glass taken out and boards 
fitted in, that in ye winter it 
may bee warm; and in the 
summer they may bee taken 
down to let in ye ayre: and _ 
perman(Whitnell) was de- ee eHO TLE HOV/Eo EN AT LYAL 7 
sired speedily to doe it.” 

Two seventeenth-century 
window frames, i situ, enable 
us to get a good idea of the general type of window in use prior to 1700. One of them may 
be seen in the lean-to attic of the Thomas Lee house in East Lyme (1664), in what at 
present appears to be the rear wall of the original house. But this house, as first built, faced 
opposite to its present direction—the orientation of the house was changed when the lean-to 
was added—-so that this window frame is really in the front wall of the original house. It is 
in the second story, just below the plate. (Figure 91.) The frame, from which the case- 
‘ment sash is missing, is entirely of oak. The vertical jambs on either side are tenoned into the 
head and sill respectively. The frame is secured in place in the customary manner, by mor- 


|: the earliest houses built in Connecticut, what windows were considered necessary 






I 


Met AL 


FIGURE 9I. 


88 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


tising the projecting ends of the head and sill into the studs on either side. A rabbet on the 
outside of the frame, one-half of an inch in width, indicates the presence of sash originally. 
This rabbet, however, is to be found only on the sills and jambs, the head being plain. The 
interior edge of the frame is slightly moulded. The sash opening is small, measuring nine- 
teen inches in each dimension; and the sill is four feet above the present floor. The purpose 
of the four holes, two of 
which are in the head and 
two in the sill, is uncertain. 
This window frame is an ex- 
tremely rare specimen, and 


; oraur the oldest which has so far 
: a been discovered in the state. 
cae ne The second example is 


ZA somewhat similar. It is to be 






I i | | } 








Z| 


i | 


seen in the rear of the origi- 
nal house wall, in the attic 
of the added lean-to of the 
Shelley house in the town 
of Madison. The date of 
building of this house is un- 
certain; but it probably 
antedates 1700. The gen- 
eral construction of this 


ANSE al Oy eee Ara 1—1,,, frame, as may be seen from 

“MAVISOA® ENS Figure 92, is the same as 

that in the Thomas ie: 

=F Aaa house. The section of the 

FIGURE 92. jamb, head, and sill, how- 

ever, are somewhat differ- 

ent. A rabbet one-half of an inch- wide on the outside of the frame shows that a case- 

ment sash originally filled the opening, which is 184 inches wide by 20 inches in height. 
The frame, as may be seen, is set snugly beneath the rear plate. 

A typical example of casement sash, such as was probably used in both of the window 
frames under discussion, is shown in Figure 93. It is at present in the Hyland-Wildman 
house in Guilford. From the illustration it may be seen that this sash is very thin—only 
three-fourths of an inch in thickness. The glazing is typical of the period, being composed 
of diamond-shaped lights or “quarrels,” the long axes of which are set vertically. They 
are held together by lead bars or “calmes,” slightly oval in section. The glass is extremely 
thin, being but one-sixteenth of an inch thick. 

Assuming, as is reasonable, that the foregoing examples of early frames and sash are 
typical, we may safely draw the conclusion that the earliest form of window was very 


y 

i 

a 
= 
Lad 
> 
| 


| 
Wo 


GIRIT 70 Bor7FoM PLATE 


pea! 
— 


; 
aig 








5-9 70r 














Windows 89 


small, and of the casement type. Lambert, in writing of the earliest houses in his History 
of New Haven Colony, says, “The windows were of small diamond glass set in lead 
frames, and swung open each way on the outside.” The illustrations in Lambert of Eaton’s 
New Haven house, Governor Treat’s house at Milford, and the Governor Leete house 


14 











IR 


i. 


Al 
| 


( } 


TS EELGEY bOmN NA: 








> SICTIOA B-B- 


25 Ye 


P 


itera nx CC 





Pe RELCET ED GUA LDS Ys 


LU paw ee eg aa IOV Pe aA Lhe 


> 


Peeters Nt Nat eho Hom GN 1 LF OR. DS 


FIGURE 93. 


at Guilford all show pairs of casement sash set with diamond-shaped panes. The use of 
casement windows probably continued for some years after 1700, for double-hung sash 
were not employed before the first quarter of the eighteenth century, and it is doubtful if 
any extended use of them was made much before 1725. 

In the hall chamber of the Whitman house in Farmington (1664), marks in the 
wainscot indicated the presence at one time of what must have been a broad low window 


go The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


placed high up above the floor. If a window did originally occupy this space, its width would 
have been too great for a single sash, and it must therefore have been of the mullion type. 
It is not improbable that mullioned window frames were used before 1700; English 

tradition alone would suggest this. 
The presence at one time of a casement window frame of mullioned form is strongly 
suggested by evidence found in the west gable framing of the Hempstead house in New 
London (1643). (Figure 


3 ae) 69.) Two vertical studs still 

Fe: EZ 1% contain, in mortises cut into 

Bua An eer er: S/tetioa B-p them, the broken-off ten- 
oned ends of what was un- 

kal doubtedly an earlier win- 


iy: dow frame. The vertical 
suis distance between these ten- 
ons is 21% inches, and the 


space between the studs is 
forty-seven inches wide. As- 


—r;, suming the existence of a 

pS] | r 4 ginele central mullion, and 
Du ten Teen yD CRA COTE) TTT =) . ° . 

_onserwas allowing seven inches for its 


ae Sterrox p-p- Width, including that of the 

two jambs, we should have 

space for two casement 

{ sash, each 212 inches high 

pa et be by about 20 inches wide— 

-/Stcot1oa L-£- approximately the size of 

those in the Lee and Shelley 

houses. 

FIGURE 94. Aside from occasional ex- 

amples such as have been 

discussed, Se few windows of the earliest type remain to us; for, like many features of 

our oldest houses, they were supplanted by replacements of more modern design. In many 

instances it is definitely known that casement sash and frames which were part of the origi- 
nal construction were removed, and double-hung sash and frames substituted. 

A very early form of double-hung sash is illustrated in Figure 94. This sash, which is 
constructed of oak, was found stored in the attic of the Robinson house in Guilford, and 
is now in the Whitfield House Museum there. While it contains no glass, traces of leading 
which still adhere to the wood indicate very clearly that at one time this sash was filled 
with leaded glass. The panes were probably of diamond shape, similar to those in the 
sash illustrated in Figure 93. The glass was stiffened or supported by the horizontal 
wooden stays to which the leading was wired at intervals. This rare specimen is of great 


SEC atal OLAMG-Cre 


ra Ya. 


a 
so 





S POY BLEHVYAG Sh Chi GY ieee reee 


ree 






































FIGURE 95. 


Q2 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


interest due to the fact that it is a transition type, and though of double-hung form, still 
retains some characteristics of casement sash. 

When, in the course of developments, windows of the double-hung variety having 
rectangular panes of glass took the place of the earlier casement type, it appears from 
existing examples that there was but little experimenting as to size and general proportion, 
for these two points soon became 
fixed. A pane of glass six inches 
wide and eight inches high was the 
unit which determined both the size 
of the sash and the proportion of 
the window frame. The earlier 
forms of double-hung sash, almost 
without exception, are composed of 
these 6-by-8-inch lights, which 
were evidently a standard size. 
Sash which were four lights wide 

were quite invariably the rule, 

' though in height they varied, being 
two, three, and four lights high. 
The earliest type of double-hung 
window with rectangular panes is 
that whose lower sash is two lights 
; , high and the upper three, or vice 
{hens 2i ae versa. A later and more common 
_j. arrangement consists of a window 


ie 
SN OVITH ROP Galas eae containing two sash of equal height, 





— 


: TATE te each containing twelve 6-by-8-inch 
LayT HAVE lights, as in Figure 95. With the 
FicurE 96. adoption of the 6-by-8-inch light 


as a standard, there came another 
change which should not be overlooked. Sash were no longer constructed of oak, but of 
white pine instead. 

In windows of the double-hung type, the upper sash was fixed, being rabbeted into the 
frame. The lower sash only was operated; it slid up and down and was held at various 
heights by a spring catch on the jamb. The counterbalanced sash of modern type, with its 
pockets in the jambs for weights, was as yet unthought of. The frames of these early 
windows were of solid oak construction, similar to those of the casement variety. The 
jambs were framed into the head and sill by means of the customary tusk-tenon-and- 
mortise joint, and secured in place by wooden pins. Like its predecessor of the casement 
type, the window frame was secured in place by mortising the projecting ends of the head 
and sill into the studs on either side. The construction of a typical window of this type is 
shown in Figure 95. 








WELLES-SHIPMAN HousE— WHEELER-BEECHER HousE—BETHANY 
SouTH GLASTONBURY 


PuaTE XIX, 





Windows 93 


Since walls were generally constructed of 3-by-4-inch studs set flatwise, with less than 
one inch of lath and plaster on the inside and clapboards nailed directly to them on the 
exterior, the total thickness of outside walls was in the neighborhood of five inches. If 
the house were of “plank-frame” construction, this was still less. Window trim was at 
first set flush with the plaster on the inside, so that the two sash, each an inch thick, brought 
the outside of the window frame, with its enclosing rabbet, out beyond the face of the 
exterior wall covering. This 
is a marked characteristic of 
these early window frames. 
Another feature common to 
them is the projection of the 
head and sill beyond each 
side of the jambs, as shown 
in Figures 95 and 96. 

One of the first attempts 
to elaborate the double- 
hung window frame on the 
exterior was the addition of 
a cornice or pediment to its 
head. This form of orna- 
mentation often accompa- 
nies the heavy projecting 
frame previously described. 
The windows on the front 
of the Belden house in 
Wethersfield (circa 1753) 
and of the Trumbull house 
in North Haven (1761) are 
examples of such treatment. 
(Figure 97.) From the 
drawing of the Belden 
house windows it will be 
seen that there is a slight 
break of offset in the rake FIGURE 97. 
mouldings, just above their 
intersection with the horizontal members. This is a characteristic feature of these pedi- 
mented window heads, which are common to the period 1740-1750. They appear to belong 
chiefly to houses of the central-chimney type. Very often this form of elaboration is to be 
found only on the front of the house, the windows on the ends and rear being quite plain. 

In the general process of refinement which was continually at work, and which was re- 
corded in every part of the house fabric, the exterior window treatment was naturally 








OA mia, ec 





i 






















































































Y *WIANT OW? 
Sie iy AO Vee Laker ht gS 


94. The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


affected, and underwent certain changes. Especially with the abandonment of plank-frame 
construction and the adoption of sheathing over the exterior framework, an important 




















age oe. ; $— 36 366) 





4 


Ea 





TOUCHE Peet Raa es 
Ficure 98. 





change was wrought. Thanks to the 
resulting increase in the thickness 
of walls, which was further aug- 
mented by setting the interior trim 
out beyond the surface of the plas- 
ter, the sash were no longer set so 
far forward, and the frame itself 
was covered by an outside casing. 


This exterior casing, which in turn 


came to be finished with one or 
more mouldings, thus took on the 
character of an architrave. About 
1800, or later, a frieze was added 
to the top of the window above the 
architrave, and the whole sur- 
mounted with a cornice. (Figure 
98.) Sometimes the frieze was 
carved with groups of short vertical 
flutes or otherwise ornamented, and 
the cornice enriched by the intro- 
duction of dentils and delicate 
modillion brackets. An example 
from a house in New Haven, built 
about 1800, has dainty modillions 
of this sort which measure but one 
inch in width and 134 inches in 
their projection. 

Curiously, the sills, which in 
earlier work had been handsomely 
moulded, as in Figure 97, generally 
became quite plain after the adop- 
tion of the outside casing, or archi- 
trave. 


Sash, up till a very late period, were constructed from “inch stock,” the average thick- 
ness being but seven-eighths of an inch. After 1800 sash increased in thickness to 136 
inches. White pine, because of its durability and the ease of working it, was the material 
invariably used for sash. The corners of the sash were mortised and tenoned together and 
secured by wooden pins, according to modern practice. Rails were narrow, and the meeting 
rails still smaller, rarely being more than an inch wide. The bottom rail, which meets the 


sill, was very seldom more than two inches in height. 


Windows 95 


Sash bars, or muntins, in early work measure as much as 114 inches in width (Figure 
99), the average up to about the last quarter of the eighteenth century being about one 
inch. About that time a decided narrowing took place, until, in work executed after 1800, 
the muntin is extremely thin and characterless. This change was largely due, no doubt, to 
the increased thickness of the sash material; the muntin became correspondingly thin 
and deep in section, rather than broad and shallow. The same muntin section was used 
repeatedly in early sash, and there 3 


was practically no variation from _ Sa 
the one type. (Figure 99.) 


wee UAE RAP LAN OF SOLTLT « 


vet f 49 








FicureE 99. 











Because the muntins of these 
early sash were broad and flat, and 
the panes of glass small, the sash 
area was covered by a lattice-like 
arrangement of wooden sash bars 
which carried across the window 
openings some of the feeling of 
solidity properly belonging to the 
outside walls of the house. It is 
apparent, then, that windows fitted 
with such sash hardly played the 
part of voids in the design of the 
house exterior. This impression was 
still further heightened by the way 
the sash were set in their frames. 
They were placed well forward— 
almost on the same vertical plane 
as that of the outside wall. Accord- ~WINPOW? 
ingly, but little shadow was cast by 
the heads and jambs of the window FS AtW HAVEN Z 
frames upon the sash.. These two FiGuRE I00. 




















: 
| 


96 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


reasons—the flatness and width of the muntins, and the lack of shadows at the window 
openings—account largely for the bluff, almost bald appearance which is so characteristic 
of many of the early houses. 




















GI SOI ea 








ERROR, 





























«SECTION BA? 




















*"WIATOW? 
JS CORNWLILSH OV Sf = tia ees 


Figure IOI. 


Not until the muntin section became narrower and deeper did the custom abate of setting 
the glass very close to the outer surface of the sash. Eventually glass increased in size, and 
the dimensions of the individual pane became 8 by 12 inches. Six lights thereupon re- 
placed the earlier arrangement of twelve. It should be noted that, although the panes be- 
came larger, the dimensions of the sash remained as formerly. (Figure 100.) 

The first glass used was brought from England, which continued to be the source of 
supply for a considerable period. There were early attempts at glass making in the Colonies, 





Brooks HousE—STRATFORD 











Deminc HousE—WETHERSFIELD WarHAM WILLIAMs HousE—NorTHFORD 


PLATE XX. 





Windows 97 


but they proved unsuccessful. The low rates of carriage on boxed glass from England un- 
doubtedly had much to do with the continued use of that product. Boxed glass, which is 
both compact and heavy, may early have served as ballast. 

Although the manufacture of glass is as ancient as history, it was not until the seven- 
teenth century that a patent was granted for its fabrication in England. William Penn, in 
a letter written in 1638, referred to an unsuccessful attempt to establish a “olass-house” 
in America. The venture of eccentric Baron Steigel at Mannheim, Pa., was likewise a 
failure. In 1747 Thomas Darling of New Haven was granted an exclusive right by the 
court to make glass during a period of twenty years. It was stipulated, however, that he 





v SIDE ELLVATIOANS © 
A B C 


FIGURE I02. 


should make five hundred feet in four years! Even during the Revolutionary period glass 
was scarce, and that made in America was of poor quality. Its manufacture was not estab- 
lished on a commercial basis until 1792. 

English glass was made up of four or five different grades, the best of which was “Crown 
glass.” “Newcastle glass” was next in quality; this was the sort commonly used for window 
glazing. “Phial glass” was of poor quality, greenish in color and streaked with air bubbles. 

It is always easy to distinguish old glass, because of its uneven surface and its amber or 
violet hue, due to the presence of manganese. Another common characteristic of old glass 
is its metallic iridescence. 

Very often a valuable clue to the period to which a house belongs can be obtained through 
a study of its fenestration. This is especially true of the window arrangement or grouping 
of the front elevation. In Connecticut there appear to be three general methods of com- 
position. (Figure 102.) First, there is that in which the facade has five window openings— 
one in the center of the wall of each front room, and one above the front entrance, as in A. 
This arrangement is typical of the central-chimney house of two-room plan. This was fol- 
lowed by the introduction of an additional window for each front room, making nine on 


98 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


the front of the house, as in B. The distinguishing characteristic of this arrangement lies 
in the grouping of the windows of each front room very close together, really in pairs. 
This treatment belongs mainly to the house of lean-to type, or lean-to type of plan. 
Finally, in later houses of the central-hall type, the windows are no longer grouped in 
pairs, but spaced farther apart, the number, however, remaining the same, as shown in C. 
This rearrangement may have been due to some extent to the introduction of shutters, 
which would naturally have caused the windows to be spread apart, in order to permit 
the shutters to fold back against the house without interference. 


‘ 














| 
| 
| 









































| 
eee 
— ee | 


i J 
Ses 
oe 

a5 

: 











[ 
q 
! 
| 
[ 


J ELY HOVE E = bya ee 


FIGURE 103. 


Wind OWS 99 


The Palladian window is a feature which belongs exclusively to very late work; it is in 
reality a Georgian institution, a manifestation of the influence of Wren and his school. 
Generally found incorporated in late houses of the central-hall type, it reached its greatest 
beauty of form and elegance of proportion after 1800. It always occurs in one of two 
places: either in the end gables, or above the front entrance in the second story. Of the 





eq 





Pees ENS HON Gh es TRA EE ORD 7 


FIGURE I04. 


two, the latter is perhaps the more common location. When so placed, this type of window 
is sometimes accompanied by a small, rather flattened gable directly above it. 

Certain late examples of the Palladian window were rich in detail and extremely fine 
in scale. The exterior arrangement is frequently repeated on the interior; the pilasters ap- 
plied to the mullions and jambs take the place of trim on the inside, and carry a cornice 
similar to that on the outside. | 

Gable windows at either end of the house, incorporated in order to admit light to the 
attic, occur in great variety of form in houses built after 1800. In the earlier houses there 


100 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


was a single window in each gable, small and extremely simple. In late work, in addition 
to the Palladian window, a common arrangement consisted of two windows of quadrant 
form, placed one on each side of a central window of regular shape. The builders of the 
Linsley house in Stratford (circa 1820) indulged in an amusing bit of deception: the win- 
dows of quadrant shape are simply painted in place, and not constructed. The lights are 
done in solid black paint, and the result is surprisingly realistic. (Plate XX1.) 

















SECTIOA AAP 


a 


“SECTION Bde 


wSECTIOAN C-C> 

















y 





WINTOW? 
SO. CNY RINK SE 


FIGURE I05. 


In each end gable of the Bassett house in Hamden (1819) there is a single large window 
or fan-light, lunette shaped and filled with leaded glass. This shape of window composes 
very nicely in the gable, which, owing to the flatness of the roof pitch, is an unusually 
low one. (Plate XXX.) 

The window blind is a late feature; it did not begin to come into use until the end of 
the eighteenth century. Thorpe, in his North Haven Annals, says, “In 1829 but two houses 
in town had blinds.” Very often blinds were added to houses built at a much earlier date. 
Blinds of early form are characterized by the narrowness of their rails and stiles, as well 


oT XX Sty 


GQ TaHI4ANS—asnoH AVL) ANVH.LAG—asnoH YAHOAAg-aAaTAAH MA 


—- eS 





CuOALVULS—daASNOP, AA ISNIT 





“ 





Windows IOI 


as by their fixed slats. The average width of rail of the earliest specimens is not greater 
than 1% inches, and the thickness varies from 11% to 13% inches. The ends of the slats 
were mortised into the stiles, which were finished with a small bead moulding. (Figure 
105.) 

Blinds of similar construction, with fixed louvres, were often used after 1800 at the 
front entrance, especially when it was of the flush type. Such blinds—they always occur 
in pairs—cover the door opening. 


























| AVE, 


JSrctiod W7 











SRN afele Peto PUSTes tek? of... 
eb Ae a eNO Nes Lata DREN PE OR YS 


Ficur_E 106. 


PE FSET SN FIG EE HIN MERE MDE FRI MEN IOE ERIE Mops 


Chapter X. Front Entrances: Early Types 


great width, closed by a door which was either of batten form or constructed of 
two thicknesses of boards nailed together at right angles to each other. The 
door casing or “trim” was of variable width, and without mouldings. It is probable, how- 
ever, that, in the course of development of the house form from its most primitive type, 
the early builders attempted to bestow 
some degree of elaboration upon the front 
entrance before trying to do the same for 
any other part of the general fabric. Pass- 
ing from the purely utilitarian type to the 
next stage of development, we find the 
rudely constructed door replaced by one of 
simply panelled form, at least one mould- 
ing applied to the casing, giving it the — 
character of an architrave, and glass tran- 
som lights added, above the door itself, but 
enclosed by the door frame. (Figure 107.) 
A glazed transom of this sort was perhaps 
more the result of actual need than of 
‘/ict1oAB-B+ a Celiberate attempt at elaboration, for 
through it came the only outside light 
which was admitted to the porch. Such 
transoms were usually made up of six or 
eight small panes, separated by broad 
muntins of plain form, which were rab- 
beted to receive the glass. The surface of 
FIGuRE 107. the glass was always kept well forward 
| and nearly on a plane with the muntins 
themselves, the rabbet being very shallow; so that but a scant one-eighth of an inch was 
allowed for putty. Another typical doorway of this period is that of the Philo Bishop 
house in Guilford (ante 1725). (Figure 108.) Simple crown mouldings have been added 
above the architrave trim; and the whole composition, though of the utmost simplicity, 
is dignified and well proportioned. 
Small panes of glass thickened at the center, commonly known as “bullseye” glass, were 
largely used for transom lights. Glass of this variety is rarely found to-day; incidentally 
to later “improvements,” it was generally removed and replaced by the sort we find to-day. 


[Ce front entrance, in its earliest and simplest form, was a plain opening, of no 













MAPA 








l 
E 


+ SLOTION AAP 














= PN TRA ALOE EDO. Rs wean 
S ORV EL OVS ee eho ee 








: 














PETE EI 





SHIPMAN HovusE— 


WELLES 


HousE—HAMDEN 


HuMIstTon 


SouTH GLASTONBURY 








ENTRANCE OF AN OLp HousE—WInNDSsOR 


XXII 


Op Tavern—Rocky HILu 


PLATE 





Front Entrances: Early Types 103 


The front door of the William Judson house in Stratford (1723) contains four such 
lights, arranged in a row, and separated by heavy moulded muntins. Each pane measures 
71% inches wide by 9% inches high, and is about one inch thick at the center. The use of 
glass in the door itself, after this fashion, is decidedly unusual. (Figure 109.) 



































~SECTIOAN BeAr 





alles SOS, Ak aan ae Me Oa Oye, ae ek 
Peto DAT OroH OV b= GYaLrORIS 


FicureE I08. 


The “Dutch” or, as it is sometimes called, “hatchet” door is probably of early appear- 
ance. (Figure 107.) Although its use persisted until a late date, it is not of common occur- 
rence. The panelled door made its appearance about 1700. At first it was of simple form, 
with rectangular panels. These gradually increased in number and became of elaborate 
form. Panelled doors were commonly reinforced on the back, or inner side, with a three- 
fourths or one-inch sheathing, applied with horizontal joints. Even when this arrangement 
exists, the total thickness of the door is not more than two inches. The single door, at first 



































Front Entrances: Early Types 105 


comparatively narrow, gradually became wider, and was eventually replaced by a pair of 
doors. Single doors were rarely wider than three feet, although the original front door of 
the Commodore Hull house in Shelton (1771), which is of the “Dutch” type, measures 3 
feet 4 inches in width. Double or two-leaf doors were nearly always each two feet in 
width, so that the total width of the door opening is always close to four feet. The average 
door height is 6 feet 8 or 10 inches; and it rarely exceeds seven feet. 









| 
: 
































Mt 












































oof ROA Ts Svel Pubes 


eRe MLC EN RE eH Yad aPC Cpt tt 
vA PYG R a iO niet er ae AN NEYO cRe oD we 


FIGuRE IIO. 


106 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


The hooded entrance, such as that of the Tyler house in Branford (circa 1710) 
is of rare form. (Figure 110.) It is strongly suggestive of Dutch influence, traces 
of which occasionally occur, and which probably found its way into Connecticut via Long 
Island or up the Sound. 
























|_| : J/ivt Or ’ 
Console 
ying Va 
est etc: 5 BE ail i Awl 
| = alae oA 













E=H 





























*S/ECTIOAN AA? 









mt FRONT LAW ate 
SOS TREY Oy Rite eee 


FIGuRE III. 


Entrances similar to that of the old Stratford Inn, built about 1745, and now de- 
molished, which consist of a simply panelled door surmounted by a pediment carried on 
consoles, are not common. (Figure 111.) This type of doorway appears to belong almost 
exclusively to Stratford. 

The next development beyond the doorway which consists of a simple moulded archi- 
trave was marked by the use of pilasters, one at either side of the entrance. When pilasters 
























WLLLLSELIAE SEG 


iu 














| 
| 


SSS 


piel 
. i 
eal | 
. 
. 


l 


—— | 


. 
i 
ae | 
i 
. 
. 
‘ 


ORIGINAL Doors MISSING 





| 





v 


Yeat ho RS CNG TOP RAN bokeh NOG. 
MASH Ree eave kr <M} 


FIGURE I12. 


Lae -/Eh MN ole ws 


108 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


were so employed, the entablature which they supported was generally treated in one of 
three ways. The first and simplest was the conventional arrangement of three main hori- 
zontal divisions: namely, architrave, frieze, and cornice. In the second form, the cornice 
members are treated as a pediment; and in the third the pediment is broken, the cornice 
members assuming a reverse curve and terminating in a circular carved rosette. The last 
two types were much in vogue about the middle of the eighteenth century, and the glazed 
transom composed of small panes is never found in connection with them. 

The front entrance of the Samuel Mather house in Lyme (circa 1770) is an excellent 
example of the first of these three types which we have to consider. (Figure 112.) The 
door opening, from which the original doors are unfortunately missing, measures four feet 
in width by 6 feet 9% inches in height. Pilasters of seven-eighths-inch projection, having 
five shallow flutes, flank the door on either side. They have high moulded bases, made up 
of the steep mouldings typical of the period, supported by plinths which are nearly square. 
The mouldings of which the pilaster caps are composed are of similar mode, and bear no 
semblance of Classic forms; the Jacobean note is still predominant. Directly above the door 
is a moulded transom bar, the ends of which are mitered into, and form the top members 
of, the pilaster caps. Above the transom bar is the conventional arrangement of six lights 
of seven by ten inch glass. The space above the pilasters is occupied by blocks of triglyph- 
like form, which have five vertical channels of triangular section. They are of the same 
width as the pilasters, which have no entasis. The lowest member of the architrave is carved 
with shallow sinkages; above it, plain and moulded members alternate. The frieze, which 
is plain, is of pulvinated form. Mouldings of Classic form appear in the cornice, which is 
not, however, Classic in its composition or contour. Very characteristic are the shallow 
sinkages carved in the corona, forming a suggestion of dentil treatment. The breaks formed 
by the pilasters and the central motive are not carried above the corona member. A feature 
to be noted is the board which forms the clapboard stop, on the outer side of the pilasters. 
The portion of it which is opposite the entablature has been given a fanciful form; whereas 
usually it is simply splayed outward and terminates at the end of the cornice. 

The front entrance of the Trumbull house in North Haven (1761) may be regarded as 
not only a typical, but actually an excellent example of the pilastered doorway of the 
pedimented type. (Figure 113.) There again the original doors are missing. The opening 
measures 4 feet 2 inches in width by 7 feet 114 inches in height. A pilaster without entasis, 
of 614 inches’ width and 7% inch projection, and having five shallow flutes, is supported 
by a pedestal on either side of the door. The die of each pedestal is filled with a round- 
headed panel. The mouldings forming the pedestal cap and the pilaster base are so com- 
bined that they form one group. Here, as in the pilaster capitals, there is strong Jacobean 
feeling; for there is but little suggestion of the Classic in either the individual mouldings 
or their composition. The pilaster capitals are simple, and their tops line with the door 
head. The height of the necking, which is greater than the width of the pilaster, contains 
a six-petalled rosette in shallow carving. This form of decoration is a favorite one for this 
place; it recurs again and again. Strongly suggestive of the Tudor rose, it is undoubtedly 





Op Inn—East WINDSOR GriswoLp HousE—GUILFORD 


Pirate XXIII. 








ial QO eae OOO Earp evavarTiaTareTnaTata IMA ong At 














TORIGIAAL Doors MISSI Ace 


Rit VALS, 





Sef Rh ORA WER ONE TERNS eGo bs 
YS TRYMBYVLL HOVSE-ANORTH HAVEN ZF 


FIGURE I13. 


110 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


a recrudescence from that period. From the top of the door opening to the bottom of the 
architrave is a space of 434 inches. The architrave is composed of a group of narrow 
mouldings which have little relation to each other. A narrow frieze, of but 344 inches in 
height, is of the usual pulvinated form. The cornice is the only part of the entablature 
which shows any Classical spirit. Its corona exhibits the customary dentil-like treatment 
in the form of slight sinkages, carved but three-sixteenths of an inch deep. The very steep 
pitch of the pediment is a characteristic feature, as is also the central break in the entabla- 
ture, which repeats the breaks on either side of it. As is customary, the board forming the 
clapboard stop on the outside of each pilaster splays outward to meet the lower angle of 
the pediment. 

The third type of pilastered doorway, with a broken scroll pediment, is typically rep- 
resented by the front entrance of the Warham Williams house in Northford (1750), shown 
in Figure 114. Each door is two feet wide (giving us the usual total width of four feet) by 
six feet seven inches in height. These doors are of double thickness, and simply panelled. 
Each leaf is hung on a pair of wrought-iron strap hinges placed on the inside, which reach 
nearly across the width of the door. Both doors are fastened by means of an oak bar which 
is dropped into two iron staples, driven into the jambs on the inside. This was a typical 
mode of door fastening. The pilaster treatment is very similar to that of the Trumbull 
house doorway. The pilasters project one inch, and each has five shallow flutes. The 
pedestals which support them have each a round-headed panel, of the usual “bead and 
bevel?’ section, in its die—a typical arrangement, as is the single group of mouldings form- 
ing the pilaster base and pedestal cap. The pilaster capitals are fairly Classical in their 
composition, though not in the flavor of their mouldings. The necking, which is high, con- 
tains the customary carved rosette, which in this example is of double form. The pilasters 
exhibit the usual lack of entasis. From the head of the door to the bottom of the architrave 
is a space of six inches, which is carried around the door opening and cut with shallow 
three-eighths-inch grooves, crudely suggestive of masonry jointing. The same treatment 
is repeated on the board forming the clapboard stop, on the outer side of each pilaster. 
This is a characteristic, in fact almost invariable, feature of this type of doorway. The 
entablature groups itself into three natural divisions. The architrave is made up of 
alternated mouldings and plain fillets; as usual, Classical feeling is entirely lacking from 
its composition. The narrow pulvinated frieze measures but 314 inches in height. The 
cornice is of fairly regular composition, its principal member being a broad corona which 
does not bear the customary denticulated carving, such as is displayed by the doorway of 
the Old Inn at East Windsor (circa 1753). (Plate XXIII.) The crown moulding of 
the cornice rises in a steep curve of reverse form, and terminates on each side in a carved 
rosette of the usual six-petalled shape. Its course is repeated by the members which occur 
beneath it. Its abrupt rise and its general steepness of contour give the whole composition 
a great deal of style and distinction, utterly lacking in certain late examples, which display 
a flatter curve of more “lazy” outline. The central break extending up through the en- 
tablature supports a narrow panelled pedestal, the top of which is connected by loop-shaped 





% TARO A eh Ne RwAGNa Ce bea” 
eee NCHA MONDE ISA Meteo AN ORTHF OR? 7 
FiGcuRE II4. 


112 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


mouldings with the rosettes on each side. This pedestal, in doorways of this type, often 
supports some form of carved or turned ornament. The whole scroll arrangement of this 
entrance is flashed with heavy sheet lead, a survival of English usage. 

Entrances of this type were occasionally executed in a much elaborated form, bordering 
on ornateness. The doorways of the Grant house in East Windsor (1757-1758) (Frontis- 










































Beles 
x aw. RI GEE) POSES I 
IL I = area MRS OS 
; A SR ERT HORE 
LE LI a It SS I Hua Ll — IL at at IL ee ee 























EA ae 








=A nualuae sats HH Lilia ie 


Sawa ei aay 


se ELL, 


























io 





tir 







J 
al 
ht 


Uy UU 
LOL 


Wow H Ui 
SLO EU 





Ll) LI 
THE 


Prue *SLOTION A-Ar 
Gay ae r 


i 







LJ 4 LL 
ii 


i 
1 






ee | Pues ; {ee 
S| lal JTOAE Suiers ll ree Ee , 
[Se ee ; Ais Si 1a, ae 


FRO AY hh Ae 
Y COLOALL DARKLR HOVsE > NO Rhine 


FicureE II5. 


—— 


SUS ikaay 


wee 
ppaasenen® 





BassETT HousE—HAMDEN “THE ParsoNAGE”—MOoONROE 


Prara XxX XLV. 


4q 


+. 





Front Entrances: Early Types 113 


piece) and of the Old Inn at the same place are examples. (Plate XXIII.) The Grant 
house entrance is the earlier of the two, and its feeling throughout is strongly suggestive of 
Jacobean work. This is especially true of many of the mouldings, which are beak-like in 
section. Elaborately panelled doors are characteristic of this type of doorway, diagonally 
crossed stiles in the lower part of the door being a favorite arrangement. 

An interesting and unusual variation of this type of entrance is the doorway of the Cap- 
tain Charles Churchill house, built in 1763, which once stood in the town of Newington. 
The whole entablature was carried out beyond the lower part of the doorway by the pro- 
jecting second-story overhang, which was of the hewn type. Several feet on either side of 
the doorway, this overhang was framed down so that it corresponded in level with the 
height of the doorhead. As far as is known, this is an unique example of such treatment in 
Connecticut. Fortunately this fine entrance has been preserved in the Atheneum at 
Hartford. 

These three types of entrances have been described at considerable length, because they 
are typical doorways of the earlier Connecticut houses, built up to 1750 or Revolutionary 
times. After that time, thanks to the constant search for elaboration, different types made 
their appearance—principally, the columnar “porch” and the elliptical-headed entrance 
with fan- and side-lights of leaded glass. 


BEE EGS FENG FRNA HOSTS TONE HII MII MILE MEDAN MED 


Chapter XI. Front Entrances: Later Types 


built before the last quarter of the eighteenth century. It is a distinctively 

Georgian institution, and its prototype is to be found in English work of the 
period. It is, then, invariably an indication of late work. It was used principally from 1800 
onward to the beginning of the Greek Revival period; and it reached its highest develop- 
ment and greatest elegance of proportion and of detail in the years between 1810 and 
1820. It is more especially a feature of the pretentious and sophisticated city house than of 
its country relative; and it belongs almost exclusively to the central-hall type of plan. 

In its commonest form, this type of entrance consists of a single door, above which is a 
semielliptical or semicircular fan-light of leaded glass, flanked on either side by pilasters, 
on the axes of which are columns supporting a gabled roof, the outer end of which is 
open. The distance between the pilasters and the columns in front of them, though variable, 
is generally in the neighborhood of two or three feet. The columns and the entablature 
above them are usually Classical in proportion and detail, though in many cases the canons 
of Vignola were overborne by the inventive ingenuity of the builder. It will be seen that 
the arrangement of a gable roof abutting the house is but a development of the pilastered 
entrance carrying a pediment overhead: the scheme is fundamentally the same, except 
that the pediment has been extended forward and its open end supported by columns. 

This type of “porch” (the word is used in its modern sense) may be divided into two 
groups. In the first may be included all the work in which Classical precedent and pro- 
portions were followed with more or less exactitude. The second contains entrances the 
builders of which gave free rein to their own ingenuity, introducing new proportions in 
designs which were more personal and individual in expression. 

As an example of the first group, we may take the entrance porch of the Bassett house 
in the town of Hamden, which quite closely approximates Classical lines. It is a typical 
Georgian porch of late date, built with the house in 1819. (Plate XXIV.) The door is a 
single one simply panelled. Its construction is quite different from that of doors of older 
type: substantial rails and stiles, 134 inches thick, enclose thinner panels, which are secured 
in place by a separate set of mouldings. The old bead-and-bevel panel section has disap- 
peared; it is rarely, if ever, found in work of this date. Panels of curved or decorative 
contour have also given way to plain rectangular forms. It is of interest to note that, in 
general, doors have increased in height, although this particular example measures but 
seven feet. 

The fan-light above the door, so named from its radiating lead bars, is semielliptical 
in shape. A moulded transom bar is mitered to form the caps of the pilasters on each side 
of the door, where it intersects them. The fan-light is enclosed by trim of moulded sec- 


sh columnar front entrance does not appear to be an integral part of houses 


SsE=— 


" — 
hi itbensns St oali 


NTRANCE OF AN O_p Hou 


E 


CoLoneL HircHcock HousE—CHESHIRE 





ReEppING RIDGE 


— 














GUILFORD 


Major Tatmace HousE— 


PrATRoX 


Op TavERN—STRAITSVILLE 





Front Entrances: Later Types I15 


tion, which is divided by a moulded key block at the center of the arch. The glazing of 
the fan-light is held in place by lead bars, and ornamented by leaden festoons and rosettes, 
typical of the period. The custom of setting the glass well forward in its frame has still 
persisted; here we find it on the same plane as the outer surface of the frame. 


The arrangement of columns and the 
pilasters behind them is typical. The col- 
umns, which are of the Roman Doric order, 
have bases and capitals of conventional 
Classical form; the shafts, which display 
an entasis, are turned from solid pieces of 
maple. 

The entablature is of regular propor- 
tions, being composed of a moulded ar- 
chitrave, a plain frieze, and an elaborate 
cornice into which have been introduced 
a dentil course and delicate modillion 
brackets. Sawed-out modillions of fine 
scale almost invariably accompany this type 
of entrance, and a common arrangement is 
to be seen in the introduction of a single 
bracket at the very apex of the gable. 

The soffit of the roof we may expect to 
find either panelled, as in this example, or 
finished with a flattened vault of plaster. 
The porch of the Rankin house in Glaston- 
bury (1754), which is of later date than 
the house, affords us an example of the lat- 
ter treatment. (Plate XXIV.) 

A very pleasing feature of the example 
under consideration is the gentle sweep 
with which the rake mouldings form their 
lower termination. This softening of out- 
line is repeated in the gables of the house 
as well. 

This entrance is an admirable illustration 
of a subject discussed in the chapter on 





Sear seL eT th OV d E 
HAMDEN * 





CooM P hah er ON a Ore ORE Rf 7 


FIGuRE I16. 


Mouldings: namely, the translation which was so skillfully effected in converting the pro- 
portion of a stone idiom to one of wood. Figure 116 shows the order employed in the 
Bassett house entrance, drawn first according to the canons of Vignola (A) and then as it is 
actually executed (B). In A the diameter of the column, eight inches, is taken as the unit of 
measurement. It will be seen that the wooden column of new proportion is about 10% 





NN 






































PILA 
AGaAIASsT 





SIUR 
Hove 


PRIAGLES 


1 . © id . s : 
ot ye) e . 7 
Va - s Vas 
.Q : iS) 
Z « 
B 
bOAH 
B 
B LBP” “SAH S ‘ ; 
iz S85 
Za Be SBR 
¥ B Hp “SR 
BAe S88 
A Ho S88 S 
2 SA 
Z THe NSBR S 
fyb SSR 8 
He 88am SS 
mbbBY NAAN SASS 
PEER ORE ES I [— 
SS 
a [J 
| SS ee eee SSeS) 
oe ee cS 
56 are 
. o 
MKo.08 os 
@) 
= 0 
TTT o Lite 
ae «es oe 
= = 
ae ——————————————————— ——- 
— ——= = 
i} 
. ” | 
o i} HI 
| 
\ i] 
Reg } 
2 I 
| 
1 i} 
! | 
| 
| | 
- = | 
\% Pe beg: yy | ; 
KKK ha ZL 
| 3," | | 
6% | 
| 
3 « 
SECTION B-DB | 
‘| | ; 
9) | © | 
i 
= : are : am be 5 : PERE or itera : ° Raye 
f : % 3 { » . cane 
. ‘ . - . . 
; : 
. . . . ‘ i 
* = _ ia s S z. e - 



















































































~FROAT ERI RA AD 
JS WA WL WO VS Ee ENG aa 


FicureE I17. 











CHAMBERLAIN HousE—GUILFORD CoLonEL Lewis HousE—Essrex 


PEATE exe, 


Loi i | 


ji oe 
‘ag 


vs 





Front Entrances: Later Types 17 


diameters high, whereas the stone column, in accordance with Vignola’s standards, is but 
eight diameters. This comparison is of value in that it clearly shows how an understanding 
of the new material, thus finally arrived at, made possible an architecture of greater light- 
ness, grace, and elegance. 

The second of our types, that in which the builder’s originality was allowed freer scope 
and Classical lines were less closely followed, may be found embodied in the front 
entrance porch of the Cyrus Hawley house in Monroe (circa 1740). (Figure 117.) 

The door, which is of six-panel form, is very similar to that of the Bassett house. The 
transom above it, however, is rectangular. Its glazing is of the usual sort: leaded, with 
applied festoons and ornaments of lead. Instead of the conventional architrave about the 
door opening, there is merely a simple beaded moulding, applied to the plain surface. 

The original columns of this porch are, very unfortunately, missing; an attempted 
restoration has been made in the drawing. Possibly the supports in this case were simply 
chamfered posts, with moulded caps and bases. The entablature is of great interest, in that 
it bears no relation to its stone antecedents save in its division into three main parts. Archi- 
trave, frieze, and cornice are all represented, but not in conventional form. Behind the 
columns, and against the house, are placed very flat pilasters, the vertical surfaces of which 
are finely beaded. ; 

Architrave and frieze, both perfectly plain, are separated only by a narrow moulding of 
beak-like section, but three-eighths of an inch in width. The bottom member of the cornice 
is formed by a course of dentils, the lower ends of which are curiously cut, applied directly 
to the frieze. Above this are a shallow coved moulding of wide projection and block-like 
brackets, each of which is made up of three members. Three simple fillets, the uppermost 
of which is rounded, crown the whole. Composed of but few members, and of great 
simplicity, this cornice is peculiarly rich in its effect. The soffit of the porch roof is a very 
flat vault, semielliptical in section, finished in plaster. There is little of Georgian flavor 
about such a composition; it smacks too strongly of the personality and inventiveness of its 
builder. The individual touch is unmistakable. 

A point to be noted in connection with porches of the columnar type is that the earliest 
specimens had roofs which were of a much steeper pitch than those built during the later 
periods. In the examples of later date the pitch became much flattened. The Tuscan appears 
to have been the most popular order, judging from the frequency with which it occurs; 
next to it comes the Ionic, with capitals usually of the Scamozzi form. The Corinthian 
order, except in the very latest periods, was rarely used in Connecticut. Plain shafts are 
to be found much oftener than fluted ones, which divide honors about equally with those 
of the reeded type. 

Another variation of the columnar porch has a flat roof and an entablature which is car- 
ried around horizontally. Entrance porches of this type, usually very late work, border 
upon the Greek Revival period. Still another type of front entrance—one which belongs 
almost exclusively to the central-hall house—is that which displays a central door flanked 
with side-lights, and a fan-light of semielliptical form surmounting the whole. Entrances 















































































































































~ PROATOELADTRANC ES? 
S CORAWELL HOVE = Ch eee 


FicureE 118. 





Front Entrances: Later Types 11g 


of this sort are built into the house wall and do 
not project beyond it. The front entrance of the 
Cornwell house in Cheshire (circa 1820) is a 
typical example. (Figure 118.) The original 
door of this entrance is missing; but it is said to 
have been of the regular six-panelled type. The 
opening measures 3 feet 1 inch in width by 6 
feet 8 inches in height. It is flanked by rectangu- 
lar side-lights, 1134 inches wide, the tops of 
which line with that of the door opening. The 
sills of these side-lights are a little below the 
middle of the door, and the space beneath them 





OV TS les 


FicurE I19. 


is panelled. The door jambs, which form mullions between the door and each side-light, 
are treated somewhat as pilasters, the moulded transom bar being mitered to form their 
caps. The side-lights are filled with glass set in lead bars, the intersections of which, as in 
the transom, are covered with applied ornaments of cast lead. Door and side-lights are 


crowned by a large transom or 
fan-light of semielliptical shape, 
glazed in the same fashion as 
the side-lights. A handsomely 
moulded key block is set into the 
trim which frames it. In both the 
fan- and side-lights the glass is 
set flush with the exterior sur- 
face of the sash frames. A sec- 
tion showing this construction is 
shown in Figure 119. This ap- 
pears to have been the typi- 
cal manner of installing leaded 
glass. 

Ornaments of cast lead such as 
were used to embellish the glass 
of this entrance are to be found 
in a great variety of forms and 
sizes. Various fruits, such as the 
blackberry and the pineapple, 
leaves of various form, human 
faces, and the more conventional 
rosette are all commonly met 
with, cleverly applied as spots of 
decoration to cover the intersec- 





LSE ACE 
ORT AISNE NTS 





FIGURE 120. 


120 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


tions of the calmes or lead bars. (Figure 120.) 
In fan-lights, the lead bars of which radiate 
from a common center, there was customarily 
placed an ornament somewhat on the order of a 
sunburst, such as is shown in Figure 121. The 
lead eagle, shown in Figure 122, measuring nine 
inches from tip to tip of its wings, is an unusu- 
ally fine specimen of the lead-worker’s art. 
This ornament was taken from the transom 
ELyY HOVSE“ ELYYS LANDING Over the doorway of an old house standing on 
Meadow Street, New Haven. 

Another type of entrance doorway which is 
also flush with the house wall, commonly seen in houses built during the last decade of 
the eighteenth century or later, is that having, on either side of the door, pilasters which 
carry an entablature, the cornice of which is of pedimented form and encloses a semicircular 
transom of leaded glass. The front entrance of the Colonel Lewis house (circa 1775) illus- 
trates this type. (Plate XXVI.) 

Certain large and rather pretentious houses of very late date, aie as the Prudence 
Crandall house in Canterbury (circa 1815) and the Gay house in Suffield (1795), display 
front entrances which are part of a very elaborate motive. (Plates XXI and XXVII.) 
Treatment of this sort is, however, uncommon, and does not occur with sufficient frequency 
to mark it as a type. Nor can entrances such as those of the Sheldon Tavern in Litchfield 
(1795) and the Cowles house in Farmington (Plates XX VII and VI) be regarded as rep- 
resenting a type. These entrances, together with several others like them, are so strikingly 
similar in treatment as well as unusual in conception that the traditional attribution of their 
design to an officer of Burgoyne’s army who was paroled in Connecticut during the Revolu- 
tionary war, may well be accredited. 

Side entrances, which occurred in houses of the central-chimney type on the sunny or 
garden side of the house, near the front corner and opening directly into the hall, were 
usually very plain and simple. Even when the front entrance was of considerable pre- 
tensions, this “garden door” was generally nothing more than a plain panelled door, 
framed by a moulded architrave, and with perhaps a frieze and simple cornice. (Figure 
123.) It isin this place that the Dutch door — 
is most commonly found; but there are 
never transoms or side-lights. 

When the house is of the central-hall 
type, the side entrance is usually more 
elaborate. That of the Gay house in Suffield 
(1795) is treated with engaged columns of 
the Ionic order; that of the Champion 
house in East Haddam (1794) (Plate 





<6 > 


ToL EA DAS OMAR ALM Key 


FIGURE I2I. 





FIGURE 122. 























et “ er a Reith ent ris olenashenoad 
paar rer 


“ ry 


Gasca ne as es ER SO 














PRUDENCE CRANDALL HousE—CANTERBURY WarRNER HousE—CHESTER 


Prats AXVII. 





= is S a,” 
b- vf bs 
7 ' 
con, _ 
ibe S es 7 
’ ’ 7 
H r 
yt = : 
lan, ra 
= " » 
Ae, “y 
7 
ba . | cu 
an | m 
Ay 
ha 


Front Entrances: Later Types I21I 


XXIX) is a columnar porch of the type which generally serves as a front entrance. Since 
this latter house is of unusual elaboration throughout, its side entrance cannot be regarded 
as typical. That of the Gay house is a much commoner form. But many such entrances were 
still simpler, having only a pilaster treatment, or even nothing more than a moulded ar- 
chitrave. (Plate X XIX.) Because, in houses of the central-hall plan, the side-entrance door 
opened into the small entry between the front and rear doors (Plate XXIX), a glazed 
transom above the door was nearly always introduced for the purpose of admitting some 
light to an otherwise dark space. 





















































: te 
meh oe 
mt La 
v val 
AY sJaAsiDpe: 
(vv 
| 
y 
ihe 
A 
+ SLCTION h- Ae pane S Le TON D:D? 
| 















































Cae NAVAL L ONT AREALAaGe iba 


eh hOR DEER eh ONO Lat ot Wo Bb Vay 


FIGURE 123. 


TP Pere Ps Picea ve ee 





TRO FCT GO Roa cae 
SEY AR Te hy 
KORG Oa 


SS 
sy” 
iY Th 
Sy 
LY oA Tat-t § 
iS 
SY 16° 
Sy A F 3 
be Vs uate Wen ere 
Se SANITY et : 
$ ox 
§ Ga Be Ee ai 
as © yy 
s V2 
S ssceasiseacaeuases Ne ee HIMAEY Giet 
mS 43 PPLASTIR 
a 
| Portes 
adie WV 
‘SL tt oie 


FIGURE 124. 


PEE ES ES ENG TNT OSI pS MERIDEN MRI Me 


Chapter XII. The Main Cornice 


N the construction of the earliest and most crudely built houses there was probably no 
attempt at any form of cornice treatment across the front of the house at the eaves. 
The bevelled ends or “feet” of the roof rafters were allowed to project about twelve 
inches beyond the plate which supported them, and their covering of boards and shingles 
served to shed away from the walls of the house the rain water which fell on the roof. 


XY 
N \) 
YY NN 
’ Q 
XY Y 
XY SN 
<r \ 4 ) 
N va NY 
Lon ) ~ y 
CE eek 
4, NS 
4 NY Q) 
XY Y 
eens Y : NY) 
PLATE, GALXx7 SN PLATE~6%x14 Y 
ee = NN SR BIE (AAR ees => ON 
FS O Zs SSSZZI7IAWY) 
Pk «Ea 
= ee 2 o ZED NILE TTT ITT TI] oa SS Zs 
S Ys od SS ZEON 
jis 3 y ; 
PLASTER cay | PLASTER ie) 
Sy ee 
: END OF GiRI 
OvT 
SLND 
+JSMITH HOVSE- MILFORD © vLIASLEY HovsE- A& BRANTFORD 


FIGuRE 125. 


For a considerable period—up to 1700 and even later—this arrangement was continued 
across the rear of the house; but a more formal method of cornice treatment at the front 
was of early origin. 

Investigation of the earliest cornices which still exist indicated that they were formed 
in nearly every instance by framing the front plate in such a manner that its outer face 
extended beyond the house line below it. The front cornice of the old Evarts Tavern in 
Northford (circa 1710) is so built; and its construction is of extreme interest. From 
Figure 124 it will be seen that the greater part of the front plate, the width of which is more 
than twice its depth, extends beyond the front wall of the house, its back being flush with 
the inner sides of the studs. It is supported in this position by the cantilevered ends of the 


1 ES Ree/4 Cale ie tae 


tr / Mpa 

= ae Lf. (Aa a Ei ~ 
= oe St ee pe | ciewcsues on 

; i; 4 


| il 
i | ly 
' ‘ | | 
| | 
| ~FROAT COR ae 
és JS OVWELR WULLTA Ne 
© 
Le WETHER Sa re 
oa PRINCIPAL | 
Sy RAT Uaice 
iy 
LF pltcons PYNTE ements ig hh eke! 2 





— AS i. 0 Tatalonee 


: 
3) Ti 
eS) is IRY 


FROAT PEL ATE 
FOva 


sepa ~ SLC 1 oe 


PLASTER 


ae LLL 


FIGURE 126. 








epee esos 
' 


e+ sega? 





GENERAL Cowes HousE—F ARMINGTON Rospins Housre—Rocxky HIty 


DIAT hex Veli 


~. 


map © 





meter) CT) YE « ( 








a 
Rae): ae 
i | ta a, 
if a ay: 
| | f 
dh | \ | | il 
{| | 
ae 1 
(| | 
| 
Aycan ateormienG OR N CE > 
VRLI was) 
1 BO ety Me ee Nan Osu Geka. oH © ¥./- Le 
iY 
PRINCIPAL ifs ve CH EOAHE RE TS 
RAFT fees 
| oS Mesh Omulake GeOrk 
YE ; Me aa he amet RN aces 
<4 5h __ ttt, szppsors1 | 


NURUURER 


OE eyes hss 


MBRERRRBR ES 
q- PAR easier pr. | 
Boch 


Seat) 


RGA SITU Re 


pe oe Te 


pe otteteel (Ny 


FiGcuRE 127. 


126 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


four second-story girts, the projecting ends of which have been hewn into the form of 
brackets. The plate is cased with wood; so that, with the addition of crown and bed 
mouldings, a cornice of more or less Classical contour results. 







JAow Rimovin 


ae 
vA 


Avovotv LEanto 


Now Rtmovuiy 


7 CR 0 STRAT ee 


JS ALLEN SMITH HOVY f — Molt pee 


FIGurReE 128. 


The front cornice of the Linsley house in North Branford (circa 1700), shown in sec- 
tion in Figure 125, is quite similar in its construction. As the Evarts Tavern and the Linsley 
house are within a few miles of each other, it is possible that they are both the work of the 
same builder. As in the just preceding example, the front plate is extremely wide for its 
depth, and is projected beyond the house line so that it is flush with the backs of the studs 
on the inside. The ends of the four girts supporting it, which are cantilevered over the 
tops of the front posts, have been cut in the form of rather clumsy brackets. This plate is 
cased on the face, but not on the bottom, which is left exposed; mouldings are altogether 











£ 


ADSL 


FELLA ELE 








tr Happam 


r 


EAS 


CuHAmpPpion HousE— 


BETHANY 


WHEELER-BEECHER HousE— 








>3 LANDING 


E.ty HousE—ELy 


Bian Ree nen LENG 


Grant House—East WINpsoR 





The Main Cornice 127 


lacking. Both of these cornices, though of decidedly unusual construction, display a com- 
mon feature in that the front plate is framed out beyond the house line. The purpose of 
keeping the plate well forward was to provide a foundation upon which the cornice could 
be built up; and numerous devices of framing were resorted to for this purpose. 





Sen alotet tet A Mt NOG PLACA s 
Pal EAPO SMITH HOVYSE- MILFOR YS 


FIGuRE 129. 


The construction of the front cornice of the older Williams house in Wethersfield 
(circa 1680) is shown in Figure 126. Here is the somewhat common arrangement of two 
front plates, the first on the house line and the second framed out 14% inches beyond it. 
The girts which carry the second plate are halved on to the first plate where they cross it. 
A somewhat similar arrangement is to be seen in the main cornice construction of the Dea- 
con Stephen Hotchkiss house in Cheshire (circa 1730), illustrated in Figure 127. Here the 
expedient of cantilevering the second-story girts was likewise resorted to, although in 
place of a second plate there is only a small 2-by-4-inch purlin. This purlin served as a 
foundation or nailing piece upon which the cornice was built up, quite as the second plate 
did in the older Williams house cornice. (Compare Figures 126 and 127.) 

The cornice of the Smith house in Milford (circa 1690) is also a constructional one, 
as a section of its framing shows. (Figure 125.) In building this cornice, the principle of 
the cantilever was also resorted to; for, although the front plate occupies its accustomed 
place on the house line, the rafter feet, instead of resting on it, are supported by the pro- 
jecting ends of the principal attic-floor joists. (See Figures 128 and 129.) These joists are 


128 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


halved on to the plate where they cross it. The projection thus gained beyond the house 
line is simply cased in, and no mouldings are present. In this respect the cornice is similar 
to that of the Linsley house. The construction of the Smith house cornice is extremely 
unusual; the writer has seen none other like it in Connecticut. Across the rear of this 
house, no form of cornice is to be seen; for the rafter feet, the ends of which are simply 
bevelled off, project beyond the plate on which they rest. (Figure 53.) Another cornice 
treatment of exceedingly rare occurrence in Connecticut is that consisting of a plastered 
cove, as in the Pardee house (circa 1725) in the town of North Haven. (Plate V.) My 


x investigations have disclosed no other work 





a Nex of a similar sort in any other part of the state. 
» SS as This plaster cove extends only across the front 
. Sy, SS WS Ue and one end of the house; it is shown more 
i SS Stung clearly in detail in Plate XVII. The outside 
; 2 = —— face of the plate most commonly projects 
sy, a i ») SS a a beyond the studs, and is cased in so as to form 






= SS a simple or box-like cornice. The front cor- 


nice of the Norton house in the town of Guil- 





A ‘oe ae - ford (circa 1690) is of this type, a detail 
A oe cs), mC, which indicates its early date. 

‘6 ae vl aly From construction of this sort to the addi- 

FZ a ra tion of mouldings, with the resultant forma- 

5 aN tion of a more Classical cornice, was but a 

ul a step. Although the “boxed cornice” is of old 

J i ot: : form, it unmistakably exhibits the influence of 


Wren and his school; the note which it echoes 

FIGuRE 130. is, in a rudimentary form, Classic. The de- 

velopment was quite similar, in a way, to what 

came to pass when casing was resorted to as a means of finishing or concealing members of 

construction on the inside of the house, such as girts and summers. By means of thin 
moulded boards, cornices of more or less Classic contour were built up. 

The first cornices in the formation of which mouldings were used were of extreme sim- 
plicity. Nothing but straight mouldings were employed, dentil courses and modillion 
brackets being later introductions. One of the chief characteristics of cornices of this type is 
the treatment which was nearly always applied to the ends, where they return against the 
house. This treatment was generally such that the corona or fascia stops flush with the 
corner boards of the house at either end. (Figure 130.) The projection in front is usually 
from 10 to 12 inches. 

Not until very late—1800 or thereafter—was the cornice returned across the gable ends 
of the hduse. Such treatment smacks strongly of the Georgian manner, and is usually asso- 
ciated with a much flattened roof pitch. The gable end thus becomes, in both appearance 
and treatment, more or less of a pediment, though of course without its supporting orders. 


XONOXe eel ey 


quodTIndy—asnoy AOVW IV], wolvpy ANVHLAG—dsnoyY LLassvg 

















The Main Cornice 129 


These were present, in a sense, when a pilaster treatment was employed at the corners of 
the house. Where the cornice was returned across the gable ends of the house, the pediment- 
like space above it very often contained a window of semielliptical shape, or one of 
Palladian form, to admit light to the attic. The Bassett house in Hamden (1819) affords 
a typical example. (Plate XXX.) 


lo" 


ST MUA CA eG OR Al ToCAE © 


lane ihikce A 


FIGURE I3I. 





yMAIA CLORR NeIaiCeL oss 
TAC OER WL UL SON ol GL Le 


FIGURE 132. 


During the latter part of the eighteenth century the main cornice came to be a feature 
of considerable prominence. An added dentil course, or sometimes two dentil courses, en- 
riched it, as well as additional moulded members; and the introduction of modillion 
brackets took place. All mouldings entering into the composition became finer in scale, more 
elegant in profile. A typical cornice of the period is shown in Figure 131. 

About 1800, or later, a frieze was very often added beneath the cornice proper, and 
filled with some form of ornamentation. This was a result of the general search for en- 


130 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 





SHIAGLEYS 
| 
FIGURE 133. 


8 “x 


richment which was then taking place. As by 
that time Adam influence had made itself 
strongly felt in America, such decoration of the 
frieze was generally in the form of vertical flut- 
ing or reeding, sometimes combined with the 
familiar festoon motive. This graceful and 
pleasing form of ornamentation was produced 
by boring holes of graduated sizes, or by apply- 
ing “swags” cut from thin boards, which were 
nailed on to the frieze. The cornice of the Corn- 
well house in Cheshire (circa 1820) affords us 
an example of the latter treatment. (Figure 
132.) 


An interesting though not uncommon feature is the formation of a crown moulding and 
rain-water gutter in combination, from a single solid piece of wood. (Figure 133.) The 
specimen from which the drawing was made was taken from the cornice of a brick house in 
the town of North Haven, built in 1756, as figures formed by dark header brick in the 
gable ends of the structure testify. The wood from which it is made is white cedar; and 
it became defective only after a hundred and fifty years of faithful service! This rep- 


—_—._ 
-. 


WOOD H Dane 


DEAUE-R OW EA Die 


FIGURE 134. 





resents what is probably the earliest 
type of gutter, for the “hanging” va- 
riety is quite modern. Generally, no at- 
tempt was made to dispose of rain water, 
which was merely let drip from the 
eaves. Gutters and leaders were excep- 
tional before 1800. Occasionally, but not 
often, leaders are to be found which are 
nothing more than hollow cylinders of 
wood. 

The leader head, likewise made of 
wood, and embellished with mouldings, 
appears to be a feature peculiar to Farm- 
ington. (Figure 134.) Its use there 
occurs with considerable frequency, but 
it is not usually to be met with outside 
that locality. 

In connection with the cornice, we 
may properly consider the rake, formed 
at either end of the house by the junc- 
ture of the roof with the side walls. 
In early work, the rake was formed by 


‘IXXX FLVIg 


qadoa TIN £)—asnopY ANOLS 


















































~~) oe : wat) eee i 
ae BE Ey | 





The Main Cornice 131 


a plain narrow board which followed the contour of the roof itself, and over which the 
roof shingles projected slightly. It afforded a “stop” against which the outside cover- 
ing of the house, whether of clapboards or shingles, terminated, much in the manner of 
the corner boards, of which the rake was really a continuation. Keeping pace with the 
general course of development which the cornice underwent, the rake became moulded, 
though it did not increase in projection. (Figure 135.) In width it was rarely more 
than five or six inches. This narrow rake, kept tight against the ends of the house, is a 
distinctive feature of Colonial work; and in that form it persisted well into the last quarter 
of the eighteenth century, when, as a result of Georgian influence, cornice members took 
its place. Eventually the main cornice was “carried up the rake,” modillion brackets and 
all. When this was done, the brackets and dentils as well, if they were used, were “plumb 
cut”; that is, their sides were kept in a vertical plane. 


vy JECTION A-AY 





A 
SHIAGLES 
A 
Corapsoarrs 
GE 
SWIAGLES sie 
RAKL 


Crarppoarrys 


FIGURE 135. 


A number of one-story or story-and-a-half houses which are still standing in the region 
about New Haven, especially in the towns of North and East Haven, exhibit, across the 
front of the house, a treatment of the eaves which is purely Dutch in character and 
feeling. The Benjamin Beach house in Montowese (1759) may be considered a typical 
example of this type. From Plate I it will be seen that the front roof pitch is carried out 
beyond the house line in a gentle sweep for a distance of about four feet. This projection 
takes the place of any form of cornice, and affords a protection for the simple “stoop” of 
the front entrance door. The influence which produced work of this character undoubtedly 
crept up the Sound from New Netherlands, for work which displays so strongly marked a 
Dutch influence never occurs at any great distance from tidewater. 


4A 


Chapter XIII. Interior Woodwork 


floors is a logical beginning. To state definitely what variety of wood was first used 

in their construction is difficult, simply because the floors, receiving more actual wear 

than any other part of the house, often had to be replaced. The older the house, therefore, 

the greater the probability that the floors in it at the present time are not the original 

ones, but replacements of earlier work which had become worn out. It is often impossible 

to decide whether or not a floor is the one originally laid; but from careful observation 

of the oldest work existing to-day, it appears that the favorite material of the earliest 
builders, oak, was more largely used than any other for this purpose. 

Double floors seem to be the rule for 

the first floor, and single ones for the 


a 
second floor and the attic. Double floors 
ie were usually constructed in the follow- 
ing manner: Over the joists was first 
laid a subfloor of “slit-stuff,” or material 


about a half inch thick, the boards being 
of irregular width, and often having un- 
squared edges. Over this, and with the 
FicureE 136. joints running in the same direction, or 
at right angles to the joists, the finish 
floor was laid. This top or finish floor was seven-eighths or one inch in thickness, and the 
boards were of good width—never less than 10 or 12 inches wide, and often more; it is not 
unusual to find them 18 or 20. These two floors were laid in such a manner that the joints 
of the top or finish floor were always broken by. the boards of the subfloor. This arrange- 
ment was made necessary by the fact that the joints of the upper floor were never matched 
together with a tongue and groove such as is used to-day. Rarely, as in the Evarts Tavern 
in Northford (circa 1710) and the Moulthrop house which stood in East Haven (circa 
1690), the boards were halved together at the joints. The first floor of the Moulthrop 
house consisted of a single thickness of oak boarding, 1%4 inches thick. (Figure 136.) 

In several instances where it has recently been found necessary to renew the original 
floors, a layer of fine white sand has been found between the subfloor and the finish floor 
above it. Whether this sand was used to secure greater warmth or merely as a cushion 
between the two floors, much as building paper is employed to-day, is not known. Certainly 
its distribution in each case was too uniform to permit the explanation of its presence by 
the possibility of its having sifted down through the cracks of the top floor, as might be 
suggested. 


[: discussing the interior woodwork of the early Connecticut house, the subject of 


© OO foe DLO phe hie pees 
SMNOVITHE OP HOV Rs Day eee 


Interior Woodwork | 133 


Oak was also used almost exclusively for attic floors; and in many houses it was used 
for the rear rooms of the second floor, even if hard pine had been employed for the 
two front chambers. Almost without exception, however, oak flooring exists throughout 
the earliest houses remaining to-day. 

A native variety of hard pine succeeded oak as a flooring material; in fact, the majority 
of floors in the later houses appear to be made of it. The two front rooms of each floor are 
often found to be of this wood, with floors 
of oak in the two rear rooms and the attic. ORWELL 
The fact should be taken into consideration, ana 4 
however, that in regions where oak was mr OTL OK Rak 
plentiful, the use of it for floors persisted paces | earns 
until a late date throughout the entire 
house. Oak appears always to have been the 
material par excellence for kitchen floors. 
Floor boards of hard pine were always of 
generous width—from 16 to 20 inches. 

The use of roof boards over the rafters 
and purlins, to afford a nailing for the roof 
covering of shingles, was general. Of many 
houses investigated, but two have been 
found where the shingles were nailed 
directly to the purlins. They are the Allen 
Smith house in Milford (circa 1690) and 
the Moulthrop house which stood in East 
Haven (circa 1690). Roofing boards, even 
of very late work, were of oak, unplaned, 
and very broad. Boards which contained too 
many defects to be used for flooring were 
evidently sorted out and saved for this 
purpose, for they appear generally to be ODS OOS MOR GOVE EB ieee ed 
full of knots, or badly split. Where the FIGuRE 137. 
roof framing was of the common rafter 
system (Figure 50), the roof boards were horizontally applied. Where the purlin system 
(Figure 52), characteristic of New Haven and the surrounding region, was employed, the 
roof boards ran vertically, or at right angles to the purlins and parallel to the principal 
rafters. 

A sheathing of seven-eighths-inch board over the studs and beneath the exterior cover- 
ing of clapboards, such as is customary to-day, was never employed by the earliest builders. 
Clapboards were applied directly to the framework; in fact, their lengths were governed 
by the spacing of the studs, on which the ends always rested. Thus the distance of the 
studs “on centers” became the unit of length; and clapboards were made of a sufficient 





134 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


length to span three, four, or five studs. It is unusual to find outside sheathing on houses 
built before the first half of the eighteenth century, unless, as sometimes, it was applied 
later. An old record book makes mention of “bording” a house, at a date some years later 
than its erection; the entry probably refers to the application of outside sheathing, as the 
house was re-clapboarded at that time. 
During the latter half of the eighteenth 
Ay century the use of outside sheathing came 
L aes) oe into fashion, and after the Revolution it 
2 Sry at appears to have been the general custom. 
“USUOU SONS ae Where shingles were the exterior wall 
covering, as in Milford and Stratford, 
sheathing was first applied to the studs to 
afford a nailing for them. Exterior sheath- 
ing, like roof boarding, was nearly always 
of oak, though occasionally pine was used. 
It was always horizontally applied, be- 
cause the studs ran vertically; indeed, it is 
obvious that the framing underneath would 
prohibit any other arrangement. (Vertical 
sheathing must not be confused with the 
construction of the “plank-frame” house, 
in which two-inch planks run vertically 
from sills to plates, taking the place of both 
studding and sheathing. ) 

Boards used for flooring and sheathing 
were at first entirely sawn out by hand, for 
the sawmill was not an early institution. 
Saw pits, in which a “top-sawyer and pit- 
ee man’ used a whip saw, are mentioned in 
SHARRISOAN-LINSLLY HOVSE ~ the Hartford records of 1639. Boards were 

< DRA ROC las sawn in thickesses of 1, 14, and 2 inches. 

Ficure 138. “Slit work,” noted in the old records, was 

stuff one-half of an inch thick. Atwater 

writes: “Having no mill for sawing, they were obliged to slit the logs by hand; and 

the tariff of prices prescribes how much more the ‘top-man, or he that guides the 

work and perhaps finds the tools’ shall receive than ‘the pit-man, whose skill and charge 

is less.” The log was first hewn square, and then placed on a frame over a pit, so that a man 

could stand beneath and assist in moving the saw. This department of industry demanded 

their earliest attention, so that the boards, being exposed to the winds of spring and the 

heat of summer, might be ready for the carpenter as soon as possible. The price of inch 

boards must not exceed five shillings and ninepence per hundred feet if sold in the woods, 
or seven shillings and ninepence if sold in the town.” This tariff was established in 1640. 


k— 0\r— 








Miner HousE—HaAamBurc 


F AIRFIELD 


SHERMAN PARSONAGE 























Hype House—NorwicH 


« 


BurBANK HousE—SUFFIELD 


Prats XXXII. 





Interior Woodwork 135 


The first allusion to a sawmill in the early records is under the date of 1653. The first 
power saws were not circular, but “up and down” affairs, as is indicated by the parallel 
scoring on the boards they produced. 

Nearly all the earliest examples of doors existing to-day are of batten construction. A 
batten door is one made up of a single thickness of boards, held together by horizontal 
battens or nailing strips on one of its sides. (Figure 137.) The vertical joints of batten 
doors were nearly always moulded, and the 
battens themselves had bevelled or beaded 


edges. The commonest form of vertical joint a 
is that shown in Figure 138, of a door from | s | 
the Hfarrison-Linsley house in Branford elec cure Nea 


(1690). A somewhat different form of joint- 
ing is shown in Figure 139, of a door in the 
Loomis house in Windsor (1688). In this eu cetsice 
example the boards forming the door are 
halved together and the edges of the joint 
finished with a quarter-inch bead. Figure 140 
shows a very unusual form of vertical joint, 
in a door from the older Williams house in 
Wethersfield (circa 1680). From the fore- 
going examples, it will be seen that the boards 
composing batten doors were of compara- 
tively great width, a door often consisting of 
but two or three boards. Such doors were 
built, almost without exception, of white pine. 
Exterior doors, in their earliest form, were 
generally made up of two thicknesses of 
seven-eighths-inch material. This was done 
for warmth as well as for security. In doors 
so constructed, the boards on the exterior run 
vertically and those on the interior at right FIGURE 139. 
angles to them, or horizontally. This arrange- 
ment is another survival of English tradition. The door from the King house in Suffield 
(circa 1744), shown in Figure 141, is an example of this type of construction. The vertical 
joints of the exterior boards are finished with the conventional bead-and-bevel joint such 
as was used for wainscot. | 
In rare instances the nails which hold the two thicknesses of boards together are so dis- 
posed that the nail-heads form a diamond-shaped or diaper pattern on the exterior of the 
door. (Figure 142.) Such doors are to be seen at the rear of the Jabez Huntington house 
in Norwich (1719), the Ezra Griswold house in Guilford (circa 1760), and the Martin 
Page house in Branford (circa 1750). In each case there is a regular geometric pattern 





eG OMe a OMe WAT CO ke 


‘IVI TUNSIY 


Pulled ky. Bere oie 








UMMM: BOOS 








f 


‘OVI ANNOY 


Wp Soeiaed 29 bar bo oo Oe ie a gn i oe ee 
EERO PoP NALA Newel Bey 





FUSE WPTHLo 
YO MTLLOE 


Interior Woodwork 137 


formed on the exterior of the door penny & oad 
© 
Anit HEA eb | 


by the large heads of the hand- 

wrought nails used in its construc- 

tion. 6Y4 
The gradual evolution of the 

interior door forms is shown in 

Figure 143, beginning with the 

earliest simple form of batten con- 

struction, and terminating in the 

most elaborate type of six panels. 

Two- and three-panel doors are the 








AA\L HEAD 





*OYT/SIDE? 
earliest forms of the panelled type. a 
Their construction was very simple, 

consisting of cross rails tenoned into SIECTIOA 


the two vertical stiles and enclosing 
bevel-edged panels. Such doors are S SABLE HVATIANGTON Hovst~ NORWICH 7 
always extremely thin—generally Ficure 142. 

1¥g inches. A later, and the com- 

monest, type is the door composed of four rectangular panels. Doors of batten form and 
the two-, three-, and four-panel types belong especially to the house of central-chimney 
plan. Where the house is of the lean-to type, it is common to find panelled doors in the 
two front rooms, often of both floors, and batten doors in the rear part. A somewhat later 
development is the door of six panels, which occurs most commonly in central-hall houses 
or in those which, though of central-chimney plan, have two full stories throughout. In 
many cases the doors in a house are much older than the house itself, having been salvaged 





FIGURE 143. 





ws 


The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


from an earlier structure which the later house replaced. Six-panel 
doors are often found which have a middle row of square or 
nearly square panels, those above and below being rectangular 
and longer. . 

As a variation of these types, two-panel doors are occasionally 
met with which have a panel of curved termination in the upper 
half, as shown in Figure 144. Doors of this type appear to be 
principally confined to houses in the Connecticut River Valley. 
Where round-headed doors were employed, as in the parlor of 
the Webb-Welles house in Wethersfield (1751), the upper 
panels of the doors naturally repeat in their contour the shape of 
the door itself. (Figure 171.) 

In cross section, panelled doors are almost invariably the same. 
The panel edge is bevelled on one side and held in place in the 
rabbets of the stiles and rails by a quarter-round bead or moulding 
which is integral with them. (Figure 145.) Inasmuch as the 
panels were generally a quarter of an inch thinner than the stiles 
and rails, a simple sinkage occurs on the reverse side of the door. 
Rails and stiles were never greater than 1% inch in thickness; 
the average measurement was 148 or 136 inches. The jointing 
Joor—lymet J of the stiles and rails is always by means of the conventional 
mortise-and-tenon joint, held together by wooden pins. White 
pine is, without exception, the material of which both exterior and 
interior doors were made. 

A very unusual door is that shown in Figure 146, from the older Williams house in 
Wethersfield (circa 1680). As will be seen from the sectional drawing, the panels are held 
in place by a heavy raised moulding of comparatively strong projection. 

A very late form of door is that of the flush-panel type, with a narrow bead formed on 
the vertical edges of the panels. Another very late form is that which has a small raised — 
moulding applied to the panels, which are simply sunk a quarter of an inch below the 
surface of the stiles and rails. 

Early forms of interior door casings or “trim” were very simple, generally consisting of 
a narrow casing about four inches in width, flush with the plaster, to the outer edge of 
which a simple band moulding was applied. 

(Figure 147.) A typical form of trim of 
later date is that shown in Figure 148. : 1% 


Trim of this sort is usually to be found YA 
only in late houses of the central-hall type. 
Baseboards also were very simple, and be. “3 ie STILE 
nearly always consisted of a plain board, x 2 

six or eight inches high, flush with the plas- FIGURE I45. 


FIGuRE 144. 





Interior Woodwork 139 


ter above it. Sometimes in very late 
work the baseboards were carved or 
otherwise ornamented with applied 
mouldings, as is the example from 
“The Parsonage” in Monroe, built 
about 1810. 

In the earliest houses, built before 
the advent of plastering, the exposed 
portions of the girts, posts, and sum- 
mers which projected into the rooms 
beyond the thickness of the walls were 
left perfectly bare. Presently, a search 
for greater elegance was manifested 
in more careful finishing of the in- 
terior, and the custom of casing these 
members came into play. The use of 
plaster probably contributed to this 
use of casing more than any other in- 
fluence. 

Houses may occasionally be seen in 
which the plastering finishes against 
naked rough-hewn posts and sum- 
mers, but they are exceptional. This 
statement does not apply to the Guil- 
ford school, where casing was rarely 
resorted to in the application of inside finish. Guilford is distinguished for the beauty of 
chamfering lavished upon the posts, girts, and summers of its early houses; and it was un- 
doubtedly because the early builders were loth to hide such work that they never em- 


ployed any form of covering or casing. on 
— £22 











































































































VEC Reren iu ONE“ WELTHLR SPIELE 7 


FIGurE 146. 








The great majority of the vertical posts 
occurring at the corners of rooms were VIN 
covered by a perfectly plain casing, with Y 
a three-fourths-inch bead at the corner. 
Where posts flared at the top, the casing 
was made to accommodate itself to their 
change of form, thus frankly expressing 
the structure beneath it. 

Where the interior finish was of great BE Yiotoute. AOR Of AL Ge. 
elaboration, in large formal houses built 7 WMovitHrRoPp HOV/SE- EAST HAVENS 
during the latter half of the eighteenth 
century, the posts were sometimes cased 







STV 


Ah 


ARES 


FIGURE 147. 


140 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


with great ingenuity, to resemble squared 
- columns. The posts in the parlor of the 
Deming house in Colchester (1771) are so 
treated. The capitals are of the Ionic 
order, delicately carved of wood; the 
shafts are fluted, with an entasis; and the 
Ficure 148. handsomely moulded bases rest upon ped- 
estals having moulded caps and bases and 
panelled dies. Such elaboration, which also occurs in the Epaphroditus Champion house at 
East Haddam (1794), is not often to be met with, and is a sign of very late work. It is 
never found in houses of the central-chimney type. 

Girts were often simply cased—the projecting corners having a three-fourths-inch bead 
like the posts—and the summer similarly treated. The favorite method, however, was, 
taking advantage of their form, to finish against the plaster ceiling with a cyma erecta and 
small cyma reversa; so that the whole combination, including the bed mouldings beneath 
the girt, appeared as a cornice about the room, at the intersection of walls and ceiling. 
(Figure 149.) Where mouldings were so used, they were continued along the sides of the 
summer from the points where it intersected with the girts. 





CHIMALY sae 


S 
s 
VLU 


LLL 
<< 


wT. 
i.e 
ney 


FIGURE 149. 


An interesting variation of this scheme is to be found in the living room of the Welles- 
Shipman house in South Glastonbury (1750), where the mouldings which finish the girts 
are broken with slight offsets about sixteen inches from their intersections with the summer 
and the corner posts. So far as has been observed, this is an unique example of such treat- 
ment. 


TIX KX, Sv Id 


AYNANOLSVTL) HLAOS—dsnopY NVWdIHS-SaTTA AA aTdI4tAOOUG—aAsSNOH Aa’ T 





GuOsALAV] Lsa\A—asSNOY XIP-T1aMalg 








7%. 
fe ears 
seer 


FS 











Interior Woodwork I41 


The under side or soffit of the summer was rarely finished with an elaborate panel 
treatment. The reason why such finish is unusual is probably that, by the period when we 
should expect it to have occurred, the summer had disappeared, or at least shrunk to its 
late form and ceased to appear below the plastered ceiling. The summers in the parlor 
of the older Noyes house in Lyme (1756) and in the Warham Williams house in North- 







TiS OFFUY OF S/VAMER 


ey eke ees 
AeA 


OYE HOYLE * 
oni) ake aaa 





12% 
SE CATCLIO A * 









CHIMALY Girt LAND GIRT 





*WILLIAMS HOVS/E? 
NORTHFORD 








1-5 4" 
Fe et CANT ECOL IALS 


FIGuRE 150. 


ford (1750) are finely panelled on the under side. (Figure 150.) The treatment of the 
summer of the Noyes house is of greater elaboration than any which the writer has seen 
in Connecticut. 

Casing of constructive members in this fashion is not to be regarded as necessarily 
contemporaneous with the building of the house itself: it was often carried out at a much 
later date. 

The treatment of horizontal girts as cornices was sometimes carried to a point of great 
elaboration. In the aforementioned Deming house in Colchester, this cornice treatment, 








“Wem! ey COR RON] Gp Lan 
CA Se eae eh Gas Mak ro Gray bt yesh uno) 


FicurE I51. 





>Sorrit OF MVTVLL* 


S SHER WAAR OVI OIG ae 


addy UU odutetett 


DOOD 


DODO UUUUD estoy DovOU 





JS CAL HOLMALA Ree eae 


FicurRE 152. 


Interior Woodwork 143 


both in the parlor and throughout the central hallway of the first floor, is very handsome. 
(Figure 151.) The vertical fascia below the crown moulding is carved with a variation of 
the Greek fret, and delicate modillion brackets are introduced below it, bearing in turn 
upon a bed moulding carved with the Classic egg and dart. A somewhat similar treatment 
is to be seen in the Champion house at East Haddam, and in the central hallway of the 
Sherman house in Yantic (1785) and the Gay house in Suffield (1795). The two last- 
named examples, however, are much simpler and have no carving. (Figure 15 2.) 

Inside window shutters are occasionally 
found, though they are by no means common. 
They are of two types: the folding and the slid- 
ing. The folding type, in three or four vertical 
sections, hinged so as to fold upon themselves 
on each side of the window opening, either 
against the jamb or into recesses provided for 
their accommodation in the wall itself, is the . + 
more common of the two. Those of the sliding *~ 
type were usually made in two sections, each ENON ESI ARLTORD: 
half sliding on a track formed by the chair FIGURE 153. 
rail at the bottom and the girt at the top. In 
some cases these shutters slid into pockets formed in the thickness of the walls and specially 
constructed to receive them. In the so-called “Beehive” in the town of Andover, and in 
the Bildad Phelps house at Hayden Station (1780), the shutters are of this variety. Very 
handsome shutters of the folding type, each section of which is panelled, may be seen in 
the Governor Trumbull house in Lebanon (1753). The top panels of these shutters are 
pierced with heart-shaped openings—a feature which, since it admits some light and air, 
is useful as well as decorative. (See Plate XX.) 

Inside shutters are rare, and they do not appear in Connecticut before the middle of the 
eighteenth century. 





1% 








































































































































































































Ficure 154. 


e\ XOX 


SundWvY—asnoyY Avy AUNASWIS—NUAAV T, Sd TAH 





fuiaeeercare 





dTdlASuaH.LA \AA—aSNOY ANVAG SVTIS 

















e 


GFN ESSIEN SN HI HS ERAN MSD MEIN MEAN MDE ED 


Chapter XIV. Panelling 


terior walls of the earliest houses. Some form of covering was necessary for the 

inside of the house walls, as well as for partitions; and broad pine boards with 
bevelled or moulded edges, extending in unbroken lengths from floor to ceiling, were used 
for that purpose. Wainscot was also employed which ran horizontally, both with and 
without moulded joints, 

Of the early Connecticut houses which remain to-day, none is entirely finished on the 
interior in this manner, though they may have been so originally. The occurrence of even ° 
a single room which is wainscoted throughout is rare. But few, if any, of the very earliest 
houses which remain to us are in their original condition. In nearly every instance changes 
have been wrought, additions made. 

In early work, wainscot was never applied to the ceiling: the joists 
of the floor above, planed and sometimes beaded, were always left 
exposed. The use of wainscot was confined, then, to vertical wall 
surfaces. Occasionally, though very rarely, some wood other than 
white pine was employed for wainscot. The wainscot on the second 
floor of the Thomas Buckingham house in Milford, asserted to have 7 


Bee: the advent of plastering, wood wainscot was used for finishing the in- 


5 


Ve 
been built in 1639, is of butternut; that on the second floor of the e 

Caleb Dudley house in the Town of Guilford (circa 1690) is of 

whitewood. The wainscot of the Dudley house is made up of very 

wide boards, averaging twenty inches in width, halved together at WA 
the joints, which are finished with a very interesting quirk moulding, 

shown in section in Figure 155. FicurE I55. 


A typical example of the use of wainscot is shown in Figure 156, 
which is taken from the second floor of the Nathaniel Strong house in East Windsor (circa 
1700). The vertical joints display the customary bead-and-bevel section, used so com- 
monly later on for panelling—a fact which is responsible for the term “panel sheathing,” 
sometimes applied to such wainscot. 

The hall of the Thomas Lee house in East Lyme—the part built in 1664—has walls 
finished with vertical wainscot, the jointing of which is of the same section. The room above 
it on the second floor—the hall chamber—is finished in a similar manner. (Figure 157.) 

In the Linsley house in the town of North Branford, built circa 1700, the only wainscot 
remaining at the present time is that which covers the fireplace wall of the parlor chamber. 
(Figure 158.) The white pine boards which entered into its construction are of two widths, 
thirteen and nineteen inches, placed alternately. The narrower boards have bevelled ver- 
tical edges, and the broader ones, which are really stiles, enclose their edges between a 


146 


The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


rabbet at the back and a quarter-round bead formed on the exterior or visible surface. The 
same treatment 1s to be found on the fireplace wall of the parlor of the Tyler house in 
Branford (circa 1710); although the boards there, which are also pine and of similar 
“panel” section, are much narrower—eight and nine inches. 


hs) fie 
SULLY NY Sa: 


<< 


reLaAU sy 






TTS 
yin 


a 
SS. 
Se 


LEZ 
SS 
SS = 

SS 


S 


a 
— = 


Z : oA 
Es an =p pak Platt 
Ene —— kA | : 








REAR CHIMALY Post 


o 


| 





























FicurE 156. 


Later on, wainscot as a form of interior wall covering gave way to plaster, although the 
use of wood as a covering of the fireplace walls persisted until a late date. Plastering was 
employed early in the New Haven Colony; but in Hartford and the other towns of the 
Connecticut Colony, wainscot persisted until 1730 or 1740. Even after the use of plaster 
for the front rooms of the house had become the rule, wainscot was still used for finishing 
the walls of the rear rooms, especially the kitchen and the less important rooms of the 
second floor. In houses of the central-hall type, pine wainscot is occasionally to be found in 


4b 


ee 
"THOS Lit-Hov/i-L. Lyme = 


FicurE 157. 


the middle room of the second floor, which corre- 
sponds to the kitchen chamber of the lean-to 
house, or in the smaller room at either side of it. 

After plaster had come into common use, wain- 
scot persisted until 1750 or even later, in a much 
diminished form, beneath the chair rail of the ex- 
terior walls. The joints of such wainscot are always 
horizontal, unless, as in some instances, a regular 


aa a a ee _ 


Panelling 147 


system of panelling was installed, with rails, stiles, and raised or bevelled panels. The 
height of such horizontal wainscot above the floor was evidently determined by the height 
of the window sills above the floor; for the chair rail, or wainscot cap, is generally formed 






eLiWAPILI ates OVC bos 
yNOKTH DRAAKPORS = 


Te tule tal pORN Ios 


Figure 158. 


by a continuation of the window stool and of the mouldings beneath it. Even after the 

use of this type of wainscot was discontinued, the extension of the window stool and its 

apron, often carved and moulded, and forming a chair rail against the plaster, persisted for 

a number of years. It is often to be found in houses which were built as late as 1800. The 

space beneath it, which had formerly been finished with wood, was of course plastered. 
When plaster superseded this form 


of wainscot, it became necessary to finish t/a 
against the floor with a baseboard, the 
surface of which was set flush with the | 2 | de 
plaster. It might almost be said that the 
original wainscot shrank to the present vBackvs HOVSE-YAATIC © 
baseboard. In later examples, the base- FIcuRE 159. 
board was projected beyond the face of 
the plaster, sometimes moulded at the top, and, though rarely, carved, as is that in the 
parlor of the Rectory at Monroe (circa 1810). (Figure 161.) 

From the use of wainscot on the wall against the chimney to an arrangement of panels 
held in place by rails and stiles is but a step. Panelling of this type is never to be found in 
the earliest houses except as a later introduction, though the chests of the period prove 


148 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


eee ST TOU Ge 





ai EASES 
=f — 
— —— 
obs <= x, — 
=——— = 
ay ees 
—_.. 
= Pe gO Wi yee 
ee ee Sass Rao 
eee —— 
=—. - 
a ; Z 
“a z By SOUS 


S PHILO DIsHOP Hovye- Gvitrory% 


FIGuRE 160. 


that builders were familiar with it. 
The simpler wainscot was probably 
used because it was cheaper and more 
easily installed. 

The panelling of fireplace walls 
from 1740-1750 onward is nearly al- 
ways of great beauty and elegance, 
and forms, in nearly every instance, 
the most distinctive feature of the 
house of which it is a part. Even in 
houses of the central-hall type, where 
much skill and careful workmanship 
were expended on the stairs, the 
treatment of the panelling always re- 
mains of surpassing interest. 

White pine, free from knots and of 
clean, even grain, furnished an ideal 
material for such work. It did not 
shrink, warp, or check, largely because 
the wood used was always well sea- 


soned. We cannot fail to admire the accuracy and careful joinery with which this panelling 
was always done, or to wonder at its perfect condition to-day, after a century or two of 


existence, too often with abuse. 


In the better houses of the central-chimney type, built from about 1740 onward, we 
may confidently expect to find the fireplace walls of both front rooms of the first floor 







FIGuRE I61. 


ae tee 


entirely panelled, assuming 
that the original treatment 
of those walls remains. Very 
often the same treatment, 
though on a less elaborate 
scale, was carried out in the 
parlor chamber as well. Al- 
though panelling is often to 
be found in houses of the 
same type which were built 
at a much earlier date, it is 
probably a subsequent addi- 
tion to most of them. 

In the earliest examples 
of panelling, which were 
naturally the simplest, the 





R 
3° 





SLCtioAs 


PAWLOOLO EO 


ATA ASUAH.LA AA—aSNOY NaaTag AUNINOLSVIQ—asnOY NIANVY 














TIVHAOVTgG—asnopH a TOMSTUL) ONIGNV’T S ATY—aAsSNOH ATY 





re 


JUCTTEOT EU E 


hE Tila i 





QR 


>», 


= 
ead 


} oe 


we 
y pie 























































































































































































































Panelling 151 


fireplace wall—that next the chimney—was entirely covered with an arrangement, or, more 
properly, a composition, of rectangular panels, secured in place by stiles and rails. (Figure 
162.) The fireplace opening was surrounded by a heavy, simple “roll” moulding. No at- 
tempt was made at symmetrical arrangement, for the fireplace was rarely on the central 
axis of the room, and there was always a door on one side of it, opening into the porch. 
Although the problem of panel grouping seems never to have been worked out twice in 
the same manner, the result is in every case admirable. 


* BEATON HOvVe/L-GVIL¥FORD® 


«WELLES HOVSE-LEBANOA® 


2 eae Cy Ee 
5 ¥%,————> 





: 1% 
n | 
« JABEZ HVATINGTOA Hover ~ JONATHAN BVLKLEY HovyYE* 
«NORWICH v FAIRFIELD + 
Figure 164. 


A very early example of panelling is to be found in the parlor chamber of the Welles 
house in Lebanon (circa 1710). (Figure 163.) This panelling, which completely covers 
the chimney wall, is said to be contemporaneous with the house itself; and although it 
certainly is very early work, it is doubtful if such an early date can correctly be assigned 
to it. Owing to alterations carried out some time ago on the first floor, no panelling exists 


there to-day. In this example, the fireplace opening is framed by a very heavy and some- _ 


what clumsy moulding of bold projection and symmetrical contour. (The earliest mould- 
ings of this sort are nearly always bilaterally symmetrical, whereas the later examples are 
not. Figure 164.) Above the fireplace of this room is a mantelshelf with bed moulds be- 
neath it, and above that in turn a single large panel, upon which is a painted landscape. 
Grouped symmetrically on either side are smaller rectangular panels with very broad 
bevelled edges. They are held in place by heavy bolection mouldings applied to the rails 
and stiles, so that the panels project beyond them. (Figure 165.) This in itself is a feature 
of very rare occurrence. The only other similar examples noted are the parlor panelling of 
the Chaffee house in Windsor, built 1763, and that of the Deming house in Colchester 


152 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


(1771). In the last named also, the surfaces of the panels project beyond the stiles and 
rails. Figure 166 shows an interesting comparison between the panel section from the 
Chaffee house and similar contemporaneous work in England. 

The occurrence of a single large panel above the fireplace, held in place by bolection 
mouldings and projecting beyond the surrounding woodwork, is not, however, uncommon. 
Often large panels of this type bear landscapes painted upon them in oils, as that in the 
Welles house. | 


STILE 






2%: Sie PAAEL 
T PAALL SULCTYOAS 


Ficure 165. 


pa. 





~COANECTICVI: 
TIOTH CLAVERo 


TENGLAAD? 


FIGURE 166. 


In houses of the central-chimney type of plan, the panelling arrangement was generally 
simple and dignified. A typical example is that from the Forbes or Barnes house in East 
Haven (circa 1740). (Figure 162.) In later houses, especially those of the central-hall type, 
the panelling system became much more pretentious and elaborate. The fireplace opening 
was flanked on either side by fluted pilasters, carried on pedestals with panelled dies, and 
with caps formed by the mitered bed mouldings beneath the chimney girt, which was 
treated as a cornice. The parlor panelling of the Taintor house in Colchester (1703), 
shown in Figure 167, is an example of such treatment. This specimen is unusual because of 
the form of the upper row of panels, which terminates in a double curve of pleasing con- 
tour; also because of the position of the corner cupboard, which has been made a part of 
the panel system. Panels with this double curve termination are not common; and such work 
appears without exception to have been confined to the Connecticut River valley. Another 
example with panelling of this type is shown in Figure 168. This panelling was taken from 
an old house in Lyme, now demolished. 


CL NXONEXESE ed 


ANVH.LAG—asno}fT YAHOAAG-aATAAH MA NaAGWV }J—asnoyy LLASSV | 




















NaHAVH MANI—asSnNOH aqaHsttoWdaq] V WOU TALNV] qadostTINL)—asnoH ATLLO T, 














gram. ee? icy ee —. .- are <i 


4 “ye 
ye 
‘ 
5 
Ss? 

































































os gaa Needy oa 


ise oNe alate HiOaV SL 
FicureE 168. 

















































































































te Aen fh. PA Ateiciag to 
Fae ota OVS Ls WIM Wee Ros EPLL gS 


170. 


FIGURE 





aap i 


sae 


samo 











ManrTEL FROM A DEMOLISHED HousE— Cuampion HousE—Easr Happam 
New Haven 





SG ia 
oo ratio sft 





Watiw HousE—LYME BarnaBas Deane HousE—HartTForD 


AGI DORON The 





— 













































































7-0 
SS 235 | 
\\ 
) A 
bata Se ee es THAN Panett 2 | | 














‘CLI AUN 


LTT A eS RO eae abre atl 1 eee 
oN Ps Pe eer ed mle Cnc] one armed 







































































ec RE a AT le 


TATTLE Tea Tak TT TT Te TT ae Te TTT 











Panelling 159 


Two examples of panelled work taken from late houses of the central-hall type are 
shown in Figures 170 and 171. Both display the characteristics of very late work: the com- 
position has become more formal and perfectly balanced, and all of the detail and scale 
of moulding is extremely fine. The work shown in Figure 170, from the Henry Deming 
house in Wethersfield (1790), is in its original condition; the mantelpiece in the Webb- 
Welles house example (1751) is, however, a later addition. (Figure 171.) 


CeresaAG Lide 








ee pRales es CO: Vex Ee N OURSWinGo Kamer, 


FIGURE 173. 


The mantelshelf over the fireplace is sometimes found with bed mouldings beneath it 
and carrying narrow fluted pilasters between which is a single large panel framed by 
carved mouldings croisetted at the corners. The panelling of the parlor of the Deming 
house in Colchester (1771) is one example (Figure 172); and that in the parlor of the 
Silas Deane house in Wethersfield (1765) is somewhat similar. As in the Webb-Welles 
house, the fireplace is flanked on either side by doors.to china closets or to an adjoining 
room. Such work is typical of the final development of panelled woodwork. It is interesting 
to note how the earlier and more informal arrangement gave way to this later expression 
of more dignified and symmetrical arrangement. 

Some of the houses in Norwich exhibit in their panelling an interesting variation from 
the common treatment, not ordinarily found elsewhere: the formation of a panelled 
motive around and above the fireplace opening, the remainder of the fireplace wall being 
simply finished with plaster. (Figure 173.) 


160 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


With but few exceptions, the panel section is always the same, consisting of a bevelled 
edge of 1 or 134 inches and a quarter-round bead measuring about one-half inch in width. 
(Figure 174.) Rails. and stiles were mortised and tenoned together and secured with 
wooden pegs, usually two to a joint, about one-fourth of an inch in diameter. Stiles and 
rails were constructed from inch stock, generally left rough and unplaned on the back or 
chimney side. The panels themselves were sometimes constructed of thinner material, 
three-fourths or seven-eighths of an inch in thickness. 

The coloring of this old pine woodwork, where it has been fortunate enough to escape ~ 
the application of paint, is always very beautiful. Through years of exposure to air, light, 
and smoke from wood fires, it has taken on a rich mellow tone of russet brown and a satin- 
like sheen—an eloquent plea for leav- 
ing this material in its natural condition, 
for white pine, thus softened and en- 
riched by age, is infinitely finer than it 
could possibly be under any garb of 
stain or paint. 

The use of panelled woodwork on the 

FIGURE 174. fireplace wall did not persist after 1800. 
| About that time plastering took its place, 
and builders concentrated their abilities upon the mantelpiece which was applied against it. 

Examination of many examples of early plastering reveals the fact that it is generally 
“one-coat work,” and that, although rough in texture and finish, it is of great hardness and 
evident durability. Shell lime seems often to have entered into its make-up, especially in 
towns along the Sound, as well as a generous amount of red cattle hair. From the latter 
fact it may be gathered that Devon or Durham cattle were the principal stock of the 
colonists. Such specimens of early plaster work are always very rich in lime; and where 
the source of it was oyster shells, it is common to find good-sized fragments of them, im- 
perfectly calcined, in the plaster. | , 

- The earliest specimens of lath are nearly always of oak, sawed in broad sheets three- 
eighths or one-half of an inch in thickness, split through at intervals with a hatchet, and 
then spread or stretched out and nailed to the studs in sections. Such lath was similar in 
form to the expanded metal lath of the present day. The use of individual laths which were 
separately split or sawed out and applied in the modern manner is of later date. 

I have never found in Connecticut an example of plastering applied to wattles, or a 
woven work of thin twigs, such as was used in England. In the earlier work, the use of 
split-sheet lath appears to have been the rule. Interior stud partitions which were plastered, 
though generally characteristic of late work, were of early appearance in the New Haven 
Colony. As early as 1641 a general court at New Haven established the prices for plastering 
as follows: “Plastering, for drawing and carrying water, scaffolding, lathing, laying and 
finishing the plastering, provideing and paying his laborer haveing the lime, clay, sand, 
hayre, hay with materialls for scaffolding layd neare the place. By the yard for seeling, 





DBNE WOO Ck tai 


AYNANOLSWIL) HLOAOS—dsnoH NVINdIHS-SaTITa MA qudod TW N£)—asnoY QTIOMSTUL) 




















Panelling 161 


4-ob, for side walls, being whole or in great paines 4d, betwixt the studs, the studs not 
measured, 5d-ob, rendering betwixt the studs 2d.” It is not probable that the court would 
have so carefully formulated such a schedule of rates unless plastering were being done to 
some extent in New Haven at that time. This method of finishing walls and ceilings did 
not come into general use there, however, until much later—probably about 1735 or 1740. 


Plastering appeared in Hartford and the neighboring towns of Wethersfield and Windsor 
shortly before 1700. 


FicurReE 175. 





























































































































Seahawk OW fold eo Ph ht ORS 
of et cA eRe PON ON (mal bat TTA Dik Met 


FicureE 176. 


PENSE MSGI NAN Ht SC RI I EN MAN MN pe MES 


Chapter XV. Mantels 


sisted in most instances, as stated in the chapter on panelling, of large, heavy 

mouldings of bold projection. These mouldings, which were mitered at the cor- 
ners, formed a frame about the fireplace opening. (Figure 164.) Often called “roll,” or, 
more properly, bolection mouldings, they were generally used until the appearance of the 
Georgian mantelpiece, after the Revolution. 


sh wood finish around the fireplace openings of the earliest houses simply con- 









































PEKIN TWh teh Rola h-OLY ale a tai Vat EtG): Ree 


FicureE 177. 


From about that time onward, and especially during the first quarter of the nineteenth 
century, when it reached its fullest development, this type of mantel, with its typical 
pilaster arrangement, represented the conventional manner of fireplace treatment. It was 
repeatedly used in a vast variety of forms, each of which was but a development or varia- 
tion of a fundamental scheme. The typical arrangement consisted of two pilasters, one on 
either side of the fireplace opening, supporting an architrave, frieze, and cornice, the top 
member of which, of exaggerated projection, served the purpose of a mantelshelf. A 
typical example of this scheme in its simplest form is shown in Figure 177. 


164 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


It is probable that many of the earlier “roll mouldings” which framed the fireplace 
openings were removed and replaced by mantels of this type. This change occurred in the 
parlor of the Webb-Welles house in Wethersfield (1751), where may be seen a mantel 
of much later date than the panelling to which it has been applied. (Figure 171.) The sub- 
sequent introduction of mantelpieces into houses which were originally constructed at a 
much earlier date is of common occurrence; so that very often a house and its mantelpieces 
are not contemporaneous. + 

Mantelpieces of the pilastered type were never used in connection with panelled 
wainscot except as later introductions; for the Georgian mantelpiece is invariably placed 
against a plastered background. This simplicity of setting very naturally enhanced the fine 
scale and richness of detail of such mantels, which were often of extreme delicacy, espe- 
cially during the period from 1800 to 1815 or 1820. 

As may be seen from Figure 177, this type of mantelpiece, in its unelaborated form, con- 
sisted of two plain pilasters without entasis, usually of about 4 inches’ width and % of an 
inch in thickness, placed on high plinth-like bases. The pilaster caps were formed by 
mitered continuations of the simple mouldings which made up the architrave, above which 
was placed a plain frieze. This was of considerable height, comparatively speaking: gen- 
erally eight or nine inches. Vertical breaks, corresponding to the pilasters in width and pro- 
jection, were carried up through it. About them were mitered the simple bed mouldings of 
the cornice; and the whole was surmounted by a thin shelf, of six or eight inches’ depth, 
with moulded edges. In the simplest examples the breaks formed by the pilasters were not 
repeated in this shelf or top member. In more finished specimens the faces of the pilasters 
were panelled, and also provided with regular moulded bases and capitals along Classic 
lines. The breaks caused by the pilasters were also repeated in the shelf member, and the 
edge of the central portion was finished in a gently rounded arc. Such compositions were 
entirely Classical in feeling and spirit, and they were as strongly indicative of the influence 
of Wren and his school as was the exterior house cornice of later form. 

This fundamental scheme of composition is to be seen in practically all Georgian mantels, 
elaborate examples of which are to be found, much embellished and enriched with added 
mouldings, carving, and ornaments in low relief. Small columns, sometimes fluted or 
beaded and often used in pairs, took the place of the pilasters, which in their turn had 
become handsomely panelled and provided with conventional capitals and regular bases 
of regular Attic section. The architrave became of greater height, owing to the addition 
of more mouldings or members, and the frieze was carved or decorated with papier-maché 
ornaments such as festoons, baskets of fruit, and dancing figures in low relief. (Plate 
XXXVI.) A central panel was added to the frieze, which, because of its decoration, became 
the center of interest of the whole composition. After the influence of the brothers Adam 
had made itself felt in this country, this central panel was often handsomely carved with 
the conventional sunburst, which was again repeated in the smaller projections on either 
side of it, above the pilasters. (Plate XXXVI.) In the simplest as well as the most highly 
elaborated specimens, the frieze was always higher, or of greater vertical measurement, 








srermmenreities 


are 





Benton HousE—GUuUILFoORD 


TutrtLe HousE—GuvuILFoRD 





ARNOLD HovusE—Rocky HI.Lu 


OLDER CowLEs HousE—FARMINGTON 


PLaTE XX XIX 








oe 


Mantels 165 


than either of the groups of mouldings forming the architrave and the cornice. Because 
of this predominance in size it very naturally lent itself to various schemes of decorative 
treatment. 

To continue with the cornice: the mouldings above the frieze—those supporting the 
mantelshelf—became much amplified by the addition of new members of graceful con- 
tour and of wide projection rather than great height. Dentils, sometimes beaded, or even 
drilled with holes, and tiny modillion brackets, were common embellishments. The breaks 
in the lower members, made necessary by the projection of the pilasters, were carried up 
and finally repeated in the mantelshelf, as were those above the central panel of the 




















































































































Ficure 178. 


frieze. (Plate XXXVI.) The outer edge of the mantelshelf was often further elaborated 
by being cut in a series of convex and concave curves, very slight, but nevertheless sufficient 
to add to the general interest of the whole composition. 

Skillful design by men whose sense of proportion and scale was exceedingly fine and who 
possessed a perfect feeling for restraint and elegance of form, coupled with execution of 
the utmost care, produced mantels many of which are flawless creations. Their grace, 
beauty, and refinement of detail are too well known and commonly felt to make it 
necessary to dwell upon these points. The similarity between specimens executed in this 
country and those which are the product of the Georgian period in England is remarkable; 
it may be explained, however, by the presence of English workmen here and by the close 
communication which existed between the two countries at that time. 

The exposed masonry of the fireplace, when mantels of this type were employed, was 
commonly of ordinary red brick, though the old stone hearth was generally retained. Cast- 
iron firebacks, ornamented with Adam motives in low relief, such as the sunburst or cob- 


166 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


web pattern, are occasionally to be met with, but were never common in Connecticut. When 
present they are indicative of very late work. In conjunction with the cast-iron fireback in 
work of a late date, a facing of polished marble is sometimes found about the fireplace 


opening. 











SiLtt+ aa 





SPRATT TOV ER = SRY Sooke 


FIGURE 179. 


There never occurred in Connecticut, unless as later importations, mantels showing 
Dutch influence, with carved or fluted spindles, larger at the top than at the bottom, re- 
placing the customary pilasters or small columns. 

As might naturally be expected, the most ornate and elaborately designed mantelpiece 
is, as a rule, to be found in the parlor. That in the hall or living room is usually less 
pretentious; and those in the chambers of the second floor are still simpler. Such chamber 
mantelpieces generally consist simply of a moulded architrave trim around the fireplace 
opening, with a plain or simply panelled frieze above, surmounted by a few plain mould- 
ings and a shelf. An example of this arrangement is shown in Figure 179, though this 
particular specimen exists in a room on the first floor. 

Mantels of this type are commonly to be found in the kitchen or the old hall, especially 
in a house of the lean-to period. (Figure 79.) 








HousE—LYME 





McCurpy 


BROOK 


— LOSE DIE 


WHITTLESEY HousE—Say 











HousE—STRATFORD 


BEERS 


Kinc HousE—SUFFIELD 


PrATEels 


oe 





CB BIG SG ON BO HI SAN ON MED MN SON IIE 


Chapter XVI. Cupboards 


the abundance of cupboards in the houses he may examine, as well as by the 

ingenuity with which, very often, advantage was taken of available space for 
“cubby-holes” in various nooks and corners. Hardly a panelled fireplace wall exists which 
has not its complement of cupboards, both large and small. 

In houses of the central-chimney type, the diminution in size of the chimney stack 
above the first floor provided space for such recesses in the panelling; and cupboards 
accordingly occur oftenest in the upper part of the woodwork, near the ceiling. The 
panelled doors of cupboards so placed form a part of the whole composition of the fire- 
place wall. (Figure 162.) These cupboards are generally small and not of great depth; and 
rarely do more than two occur in a single wall. They were always simply sealed with wood 
on the inside, and sometimes, if large enough, fitted with one or more shelves. The ar- 
rangement of cupboards in the fireplace wall of the original tap-room of the Phelps 
Tavern in Simsbury (1771) is extremely unusual. A continuous row of shallow cupboards 
with glazed doors extends across the room, against the ceiling. (Plate XXXIV.) 

Because of its prominent position and general beauty of form, the cupboard of chief 
interest is the corner closet, designed primarily as a place for keeping (and incidentally 
for showing) the choicest pieces of the family china. Variously referred to in old records 
as the “bowfat,” “boffet,” or “buffit”—terms which are corruptions of the English 
“buffet,” the office of which piece of furniture it fulfilled—the corner cupboard belongs 
exclusively to the central-chimney house. The writer has never found one built into a 
Connecticut house of any other type. 

In a great many instances, the corner cupboard was built in subsequently to the erection 
of the house. If the house were originally of two-room plan and the corner cupboard was 
introduced at some later date, its installation generally coincides with the addition of the 
lean-to. 

The corner cupboard is generally to be found in the “best room,” or parlor, usually in 
the right-hand farther corner if we stand with our backs to the fireplace. Occasionally, 
though not often, it is on the left hand. Its position against the outside wall was, however, 
well fixed, and its occurrence against the chimney wall is rare. As may be seen from Figure 
167, the corner cupboard in the parlor of the Taintor house near Colchester (1703) was 
built against the fireplace wall; but in that example it forms a part of the panelling system. 
Closets of this type are also found, though rarely, built into the fireplace wall and flush 
with it. That in the Benton house, Guilford (circa 1760), is an example (Plate XX XIX); 
and also that in the Beers house, Stratford (circa 1710). (Plate XL.) 

The corner cupboard is always to be found divided into two parts, an upper and a 


[Ne student of the early architecture of Connecticut cannot but be impressed by 









vw SECTION AA? 


3, x43 
ye 







Plaioe bul 


*~ SECTION I-E 





o SELECTION BDDe *Sitticays 


9 CO ROR DRS CO? BON ee es 


JS HARRISON-LINSLEY HOYSE-BRAATORIS 


FicureE 180. 





lower, by a counter shelf, 
generally placed about 
thirty inches from the floor. 
Usually the upper part was 
enclosed by a single glazed 
door the width of the open- 
ing, below which was a solid 
wooden door of panelled 
form. Very often these 
lower doors occur in pairs. 
It is not uncommon to find 
corner cupboards which lack 
the doors above the counter 
shelf; e.g., those in the 
King house, Suffield (circa 
To74) (Plate XL), and 
the Harrison-Linsley house, 
Branford, 1690. (Figure 
180.) 

Generally, such  cup- 
boards as lack upper doors 
are very early and compara- 
tively primitive specimens. 
Whether or not the upper 
door was glazed, the build- 
ers were always at great 
pains, it would appear, to 
carry out a round-headed 
treatment. Even when the 
door was rectangular, the 
glazing generally termi- 
nated in semicircular form. 
(Plate XLI.) In the great 
majority of examples, how- 
ever, the upper door is 





Cupboards 169 























VCO GRA SEOR ORVe PED Or AGRA. « 


Comr velete eee Onlevatlaw 7 > Re Asi h.O. RD 7 


FIGuRE I81I. 


glazed and has a semicircular head, and the spandrel on either side of it is filled with a 
panel of the usual type. (Plate XLI.) The diminutive keystone which was set into the 
trim about the door, at the top of the arch, is a characteristic feature. It is very often to 
be found decorated with that favored motive, the six-petalled rose, in shallow carving. 
When a keystone was so used, the mouldings of the room cornice against which it abutted 


were mitered around it. 


170 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


When glazed, the cupboard door was invariably made up of small panes of the con- 
ventional 6-by-8-inch size, set in broad muntins. These muntins, which were always 
moulded, were rarely less than an inch in width; some examples measure as much as an 
inch and a quarter. Since the doors were made of inch stock, the result was a broad flat- 
tened muntin, and the glass was necessarily set nearly flush with the inner surface of the 
door. (Figure 99.) 

Another interesting point to be noted in connection with the door of glazed form is the 
slight offset, usually about one inch, which occurred at the spring of the arch of the glass, 
without being repeated in the exterior contour of the door itself. (Plate XLI.) 

A very unusual muntin arrangement is that of the corner cupboard in the Captain 
Ambrose Whittlesey house in Saybrook (1799). (Plate XL.) Instead of the customary 
vertical muntins following the contour of the arch above its spring-line, this semicircular 
space 1s divided into three equal parts by two radial bars. The upper part of this cupboard 
is said to have been taken from an earlier house; certainly it is of comparatively early 
workmanship. 

A form of cupboard which appears to have been peculiar to the town of Guilford has 
a pair of panelled wooden doors closing the opening above the counter shelf. (Plate 
XXXIX.) The opening terminates, as may be seen, in the customary round-headed form. 

That part of the cupboard opening which was below the counter shelf was always 
closed, as has been stated, with a solid wooden door or doors. Such doors were nearly 
always panelled, and in a great variety of forms. If the door were single, its panels were 
often formed by diagonally crossed stiles. (Plate XLII.) Usually, however, the panels 
were of simple rectangular form. 

In sectional plan, the corner cupboard was generally of semicircular shape or nearly so. 
The curved back, which extended down only to the counter shelf, was constructed either 
of wood or of lath and plaster. Both materials were used, it appears, with equal frequency. 
Occasional examples are to be found in which the back, if built of wood, is carried over 
- into a half-domed termination at the top and carved with radiating flutes into a shell-like _ 
form. The corner cupboard in the King house, in Suffield (circa 1744), is an excellent 
specimen of such treatment. (Plate XL.) Shell-topped cupboards, so far from being at 
all common, may be said to be of comparatively rare occurrence in Connecticut. A very 
fine example exists in the parlor of the Webb-Welles house in Wethersfield (1751); 
though there the cupboard is built into the fireplace panelling, and is concealed by a hand- 
somely panelled door, which is flush with the rest of the woodwork. 

When the cupboard was across the corner of the room, its face rarely ran directly from 
wall to wall: it was usually set out, or away from the walls on either side, by an offset of 
five or six inches. In the later and more elaborate examples, a flat pilaster with shallow 
fluting was placed on either side of the door opening. (Plate XLII.) In some examples such 
pilasters extended from floor to ceiling; in others they were supported on pedestals with 
moulded caps and bases and panelled dies. A common arrangement was to rest the pilaster 
bases on the counter shelf. The employment of pilasters, which are very primitive in form, 








HousE— 


WELLES-SHIPMAN 


TyLerR HouseE—East Haven 


SouTH GLASTONBURY 





agen? 























Comstock HousE—East HarTFoRD 


Rogsppins HousE—Rocky HILu 


Brahe 





& 


Cupboards 171 


in the corner cupboard of the Talcott Arnold house in Rocky Hill (1764) is of notable 


interest. (Plate XX XIX.) 


The shelves in the upper part of the “bofhit” were usually placed about eight or ten inches 
apart. They were narrow—rarely more than six inches wide—and, like the back of the 
cupboard, semicircular. Very often the termination of the shelf at either end was cut in 
an ornamental manner, and a rounded projection was introduced in the center, in order 
to provide a greater width of shelf for the display of some large object. It was customary 
to cut a continuous groove along the center of each shelf, so that plates could be stood 


on edge without slipping. 

The occurrence of regular closets in 
houses of the central-chimney type is 
rather unusual except on the second floor, 
where they are sometimes found opening 
from the two front chambers, and built 
into the space of the chimney bay. (Figure 
15.) The decrease in size of the stack on 
the second floor provided this space, which 
was sometimes so utilized. In houses of 
this type in which the stairs to the cellar 
were not placed beneath those to the sec- 
ond floor, the space beneath the stairs 
served as a closet, entered by a door from 
one of the front rooms. An unusual ar- 
rangement existed in the Captain Charles 
Churchill house in Newington, built in 
1763, and now demolished. A door beneath 
the front stairs opened from the porch into 
a closet-like space between them and the 
chimney stack, which was utilized as a 
saddle room. Stout wooden pegs driven 
into the walls provided safe resting places 
for equipment too valuable to be left in 
the barn. 

The house of central-hall type, with its 
two chimneys, each of which was centrally 
located between a front and a rear room, 
had, as may be seen from Figure 16, four 
spaces on each floor which were of the 
depth of the chimney stack. Closet room 
was therefore abundant. It is rather un- 
usual, though, to find all such space con- 












ee MELT AWA ® 


YY 


SAUL re. Bs 


Dees E LT os 


*CORAER Cyvrooarys + 
Wt al AO ae Bele 


FIGuRE 182. 


172 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


verted into closets: much of it was used for communication between front and rear rooms, 
or, on the first floor, as a vestibule to a side door. 

The modern necessity of having a multitude of closets was evidently not felt by the 
early builders, probably because their mode of living was simpler and their possessions, 
were fewer than ours of to-day. 

We hear much about secret closets, but their actual occurrence is a rarity. One is said to 
have existed in the space about the chimney stack on the second floor of the older Silliman 
house in Fairfield (1760). Entered by removing one of the boards at the end of a closet 
which opened from the hall chamber, it served as a hiding place during the Revolutionary 
war. A curious closet exists on the second floor of the Acadian house in Guilford (1670). 
Consisting merely of the space in front of the central chimney stack and behind the stairs, 
it is accessible by a door from either front chamber. Though referred to as a secret closet, 
it does not seem to justify that title. What it provided was a secret passage from one 
room to the other. 








CUPBOARD IN AN O_Lp HousE— CUPBOARD IN AN O_p HousE— 
SIMSBURY West Hartrrorp 





BEARDSLEY HousE—HUuUNTINGTON Jupson HousE—STRATFORD 


Prartex i Le 


ad 





GRA BSG IGN BSG ON OOD SAN MO MSN EIGN SON ID 


Chapter XVII. The Stairs 


East Lyme (1664) in its first stage, the stairs occupy the front end of the chimney 

bay, at one side of the single room of the first floor. (Figure 1.) When the plan 
changed to one of two rooms, the stairs remained in the same place; that is, in front of 
the chimney, which had now become centrally located. In the lean-to type, the same ar- 
rangement held good; for the porch, or space apportioned to the stairs, had become 
definitely fixed in its relation to the 
chimney. The rule, then, became 
established, in houses of the central- 


chimney type, that the front or main 
stairs should occupy a position directly iE 


I the earliest or one-room type of plan, exemplified by the Thomas Lee house in 


CHIMNEY 






behind the front entrance, in front of 
the chimney stack. Through long 
adaptation to this space, they became 
standardized in dimensions and type. 

The space given them was neces- 









LDGL OF GALLERY 


sarily small, the average chimney bay “POR A His 
being about one-half the width of the GaLT ey ork 
bays or rooms adjoining it on each ifs 


fore : THt1s Parr 
side. Accordingly, risers were high coe ee 


and treads narrow. The use of 

“winders,” or diagonal steps at the TERA Ney AST aR os te 

turns, a common feature of the earli- ar 

est examples, is one of their distin- DEMING HOVSE-FARMINGTOA 
guishing characteristics. It is possible Ficure 183. 

that some of the first stairs were built 

entirely of winders, though few such specimens have come down to us to-day. This is not 
to be wondered at, for a staircase which has no straight runs is both uncomfortable and 
dangerous to negotiate. In the New Haven Colony the chimney bay was generally of more 
generous proportions than elsewhere in the state, sometimes by as much as two feet; and 
this fact, by permitting wider treads, resulted in decreasing the steepness of the stair pitch 
in houses of that locality. 

A front stair arrangement which is comparatively rare and of great interest is that 
illustrated in Figure 183. The stairs are in the usual space—in front of the chimney stack— 
but instead of ascending in the usual fashion, they begin directly opposite the front 
entrance and branch right and left from a landing about halfway up. Doors directly at the 


174 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


top of each flight communicate with the hall and parlor chambers respectively; and 
access from one room to the other is by means of a gallery above the porch at the second 


floor level. 


It is extremely unusual to find a house of central-chimney plan in which the main 





t Fresh olroikeer nee 


JS Brockway HovSE-HAMBYRG SY 


Figure 184. 





vOF PRS TEL OO heh aes 
S JAAMVEL WEBS Totton 
~EALT WING £Ofk eae 


Ficure 185. 


we 


stairs are in any other than the conventional 
position. But the first-floor plan of the 
Brockway house near Hamburg (circa 
1725) shows that the main staircase occu- 
pies a very unusual place—at the rear of 
the house. (Figure 184.) Yet it is not of 
the back-stairs type, but is carefully and 
somewhat elaborately built, with well- 
turned balusters and a moulded hand-rail. 
(Plate XLIII.) From first glancing at the 
plan of the Samuel Webster house (1787) 
in East Windsor Hill (Figure 185), it 
would seem that a similar arrangement 
existed there. But here the omly stairs to 
the second floor are the back stairs, which 
are enclosed with pine wainscot and have 
no hand-rail. This is a brick house, only a 
story and a half in height. 


There appears to have been no fixed rule © 


as to whether the stairs were made right- 
or left-handed. (Right-handed stairs are 
those which have the hand-rail on the 
right-hand side, so that the person ascend- 
ing them turns to the right; left-hand 
stairs reverse this arrangement.) Right- 
and left-handed stairs appear to have been 
of equally frequent occurrence, possibly 
because their direction was determined by 
the orientation of the house, which in Con- 
necticut followed no rule. In Rhode Island 
the early house invariably faced south; but 
in Connecticut the builders always faced 
their houses on the main highway, so that, 
whatever the orientation of the house, the 
hall, or living room, was placed on the 
warmer and less exposed side. Inasmuch as 
the stairs to the cellar, when they existed in 


ee 





Brockway HousE—HAmMBURG PARDEE HousE—MontTowEsE 





Hitt HousE—GLasronBuRY OLpER WiLu1ams HousE—WETHERSFIELD 


Pratees GLI, 


Doo 


aS 


a 


ers Me 
oie nn) 
; 
Vi 
* 





The Stairs i7e 


a house of two-room plan, usually led downward from the hall, the stairs to the second 
floor were started from the opposite side of the porch, in order to provide the necessary 
head-room for them. This is why the great majority of stairs in central-chimney houses 
begin on the side of the porch which is nearest the parlor. Even when, as in the lean-to 
type of plan, the cellar stairs no longer lead from the hall, this arrangement still persisted. 

A feature of common occurrence in the earliest examples of front stairs—one found 
with sufficient frequency to be counted as a characteristic—is the diminution in height of 
the last or top riser of the flight. The reason for this is not clear. In the simplest and 
earliest types of stairs, hand-rails and balusters were lacking, and the whole flight was en- 
closed by a single thickness of wainscot, generally displaying the familiar panel section and 


3h- 


7 





ent ees ie Lipa Vs (4 ee GV neue eee 


FicurE 186. 


176 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


running vertically. The front stairs in the older Bushnell house (1678-1679), near Say- 
brook, are of this arrangement. (Figure 3.) The use of panelled wainscot below the 
handrail partially to enclose the stairs is illustrated in Figure 186. Treatment of this sort 
is decidedly out of the common; the writer has not seen similar work elsewhere in 
Connecticut. 

The next development is the omission of the enclosing wainscot and the introduction 
of plain square newels and a rail. The open end of the stairs—i.e., the part away from 
the chimney—was covered by a continuous or box string, in the treatment 
of which mouldings early came into use. (Figure 187.) The space below 
the string was covered with simple wainscot, and later came to be panelled. 
The front stairs of the Moulthrop house in East Haven, shown in Figure 
188, are characteristic of this period. 

In the third or final stage, the newel posts were often turned and finished 
with moulded caps. Some of these caps were formed by the mitered inter- 
sections of the hand-rail. (Figure 189.) Balusters, nearly always turned, 
were placed upon the heavily moulded box string, and were at first spaced 
rather widely apart, with no fixed relation to the stairs themselves. A char- 
acteristic feature is the use of half balusters against the newels. (Figure 
190.) (Plate XLIV.) 

The use of turned balusters began about 1700, the earliest forms being 
characterized by their squatness and general stumpiness. (Plate XLIII.) 
Early balusters were generally made up of a great number of very full 
forms, and their composition was often Jacobean in spirit. From balusters of | 
Ficure 187. this sort the development was toward longer and more graceful, flowing 

lines, with comparatively few members, as shown in Figure 191. A com- 
parison of typical early and late types, as illustrated in Figure 192, is of striking interest. 
The front stairs of the Pardee house in North Haven, built about 1725, and those of the 
older Williams house in Wethersfield (circa 1690) display very short balusters of robust 
form, with a decidedly Jacobean flavor. (Plate XLIII.) In both instances the balusters are 
placed above vertical pine wainscot which shows the familiar bead-and-bevel section at the 
joints. 

Although most stairs in central-chimney houses display the boxed string, upon which 
the balusters were equally spaced, now and then occurs a staircase which has an open 
outer end, with the balusters placed in pairs upon the returned nosing of each tread. 
(Plate XLV.) This scheme was not altogether fortunate, for it resulted in crowding to- 
gether the two balusters next the newel post. 

Flat balusters, with a contour on two edges produced by sawing, such as may be found 
in Rhode Island, are a rarity in Connecticut. They are not to be met with west of New 
London. Balusters of simple rectangular section are not common: it is evident that, even 
in very early days, the turned baluster was in high favor. A typical example of plain 
balusters may be seen in the front stairs of the Ezra Griswold house in Guilford (circa 
1760), shown in Figure 193. 


10%" 


GENERAL WALKER HousE—STRATFORD 


SEwarp HousE—GUILFoRD 











HyLanp-WILpMAN HousE—GUILFoRD 


GENERAL JoHNsoN HousE—GUILFoRD 


Pirate XLIV. 


oo” 


7? 
i ‘ 
vou 1% 





The Stairs 177 


A species of hard pine appears to have been the favorite material for baluster con- 
struction, even when the rails and newels were of oak. This preference was possibly due 
to the greater ease with which such softer wood could be turned upon the lathe. Oak 
balusters are occasionally to be met with, as in the Hyland-Wildman house in Guilford 
(circa 1660) (Plate XLIV) and the Graves house in Madison (1675). 





es 8-10 % 


PI eMOV LEH ROP HONS baa SIA YEN vw! 


Ficure_E 188. 


By comparing different specimens, the development of the hand-rail may be traced. The 
various examples group themselves into three general classes. (Figure 194.) The first type 
was of simple rectangular section, chamfered slightly at the corners or rounded on top. 
The next step was marked by the use of mouldings, usually on the outer side, away from 
the stairs, so that the rail is unsymmetrical in section. The third and ultimate stage is marked 
by the moulded rail of symmetrical type and greater elaboration. Hand-rails of this last 
sort are typical of the last period of stair construction in both central-chimney and central- 


178 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


hall houses. Specimens of the first two groups, but rarely of 
the last, may often be found made of oak. Hard pine, and, in 
the latest houses, mahogany, were the woods employed in mak- 
ing the moulded symmetrical rail. 

In stairs of the earliest type, which have no hand-rails and 
are enclosed by wainscot, a square oak post of three- or four- 
inch section is commonly found at each angle or corner of the 
stairs farthest from the chimney, into which post the diagonal 
treads or “winders” are framed. When wainscot was super- 
seded by hand-rails and balusters, these posts remained and 
served the same purpose. Two more were added: one each at 
the top and bottom of the flight, to receive the ends of the 
hand-rail. In most instances the rail is to be found tenoned 
into the newels and secured with wooden pins. In stairs of 
central-chimney houses the writer has never found the rail 
fitted with ramps and ease-offs, such as are common in the stair 
treatment of late houses of the central-hall type. A customary 
arrangement was simply to butt the ends of the hand-rail 
against the newel posts; although occasionally it is found, at 
the bottom of the flight, mitered into a short level section, 
which is in turn 
mitered around the 
+ Capt. Ropert Liy Hovvt top of the newel 

VASES post to form its 

FicureE 189. cap. (Figure 195.) 

This last scheme 

was the precursor of the ease-off, which was 

formed by curving the lower end of the rail 

so that it became level at its intersection with 

the newel post. Work of this sort could be °%*** 42% 
done, of course, only by a skillful joiner. 

The Stowe house in Milford (1685-1690) 
exhibits a stair treatment of very unusual form 
and extreme interest. The stairs of this house, 
which is of irregular plan, are of the “dog- 
legged” type; that is, the hand-rails of each 
of the two ramps stop against the same side 
of a common newel post. 

By far the greater number of newels were 
of plain form and not larger than three or 
four inches square, and their only ornamenta- FicureE 190. 









3 
TeRaro Of 


Secrion OF Rare 


SHARRISOA-LINSLEY HovetZ 
BRA A OFeOse yee 





The Stairs 179 


tion consisted of a simply moulded or turned cap. Newel posts turned throughout their 
length are less common, although they are frequently found in stairs of central-hall 
houses. Rarely do we meet with the newel of rectangular section, panelled on all four sides 
or even, like that shown in Figure 196, only on the front one. In this example, the panel 
is carved directly into the post, which is of oak. The newel post of the main stairway of 


























LIL 





peg] as iv ge ed ea Ce A res Wie Rane By 1 Ge ed ll ee A 


FicureE 191. 


the Deacon John Benjamin house in Milford (circa 1750), illustrated in Figure 197, is 
unusual in its treatment. Like that of the Bushnell house, it is made of oak. In certain in- 
stances the newel was formed by grouping together four balusters, over which the rail 
was mitered to form a cap. 

Occasionally the lower end of the post at the top of the flight is to be found projecting 
below the finished ceiling of the porch. Where this occurs, the newel usually terminates in 
a series of handsomely turned mouldings, as does that in the General Walker ‘house in 
Stratford (circa 1740), shown in Figure 198. The same treatment is to be seen in the Coit 
house in Norwich (1785) and the Governor Trumbull house in Lebanon (1740); but 


180 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


these are of the central-hall type. The post in the last- 
named house is turned in the form of an acorn and its 
cup. (Figure 198.) 

Another feature of interest which deserves mention in 
connection with the stairs of central-chimney houses is the 
small seat or bench usually built beneath them and against 
the panelled wainscot. (See Figure 186.) If we are to use 
the term “sparking-bench,” commonly applied to this 
arrangement, we must needs accept the oft-repeated state- 
ment that it afforded the amorous swain, on his way to 
the door, a last tarrying place for fond farewells. Judging 
from their size, many such benches must have been a 
tight squeeze. Some of these sparking-benches, but not 
many, have hinged lids. That in the Captain Lee house in 
Guilford (1763) has a section of the seat, thirteen inches 
wide, which slides out, thus giving access to the space 
beneath. (Figure 186.) 

When the central-chimney type of plan gave way to 
the central-hall arrangement, the stair treatment gradually 
became of much greater importance. In its final stage, all 

FIGURE 192. possible attention was lavished upon the stairs, and they 

became, through sheer elaboration, one of the chief fea-_ 

tures of the house interior. Originally the space allotted to them in front of the central 

chimney had been cramped, and the angle of ascent necessarily steep—generally in the 

neighborhood of forty-five degrees, and sometimes even steeper. The pitch, or angle of 

ascent, naturally depended upon the space available for the “run,” and that in turn was 

‘governed by the width of the chimney bay. This was greater, as I have noted, in houses of 

the New Haven Colony than elsewhere, and accordingly the stairs in and about New 
Haven were easier of ascent. 

As a consequence, probably, of years of adaptation to their accustomed space, the stairs, 
even when freed from the confines of the chimney bay, kept for some time their old pro- 
portions. But eventually, as was natural, their width was increased, their pitch lowered, and 
the ascent made more gradual and easy. Newel posts became elaborately turned and carved, 
often into spiral forms, as those in the Grant house in East Windsor (1757-1758) and 
the Webb-Welles house in Wethersfield (1751). (Plate XLVI.) In such examples the 
bottom step usually flared outward, its curve being repeated by the hand-rail above it. 
Together with these changes, the old box string finally disappeared, and two or three 
balusters of more graceful form were placed directly upon the treads. In the finer houses 
of the last quarter of the eighteenth century, mahogany came into use for hand-rails, and 
occasionally for balusters as well. The General Jedediah Huntington house in Norwich 
(1765) contains a very handsome staircase, the rail and balusters of which are made of solid 


14° 
26 34- 


en LAM Rteyes LAT Bae 











Hype Houste—NorwicuH 


AWW 
AMMA AAD ADAA ADB Be 





Hart HousE—SAYBROOK 


Huntinctron HousE—NorwicH 


Pirate XLV 


ee Oe 


y 
of 





The Stairs 181 


mahogany. The balusters, of which there are two patterns, alternately used, are of 
twisted or “rope” pattern. (Plate XLV.) 

An unusual and lavish use of mahogany is found in the Sherman house at Yantic 
(1785), where the entire staircase, as well as the panelled wainscot below the chair rail 
on each side of the central hallway, is of mahogany. 


pe te) %, 





Rae OR Gb GR WOW We hOt tie GYIDFORy S 


FIGURE 193. 





SS Ou 





444+ 
MLS UD 





* SECTION? 


AAACN 


\ 


A 


*ELEYATIOA®Y 





BEAJAMIA HOVE? 
PeeerevemuehOVSE~ JAYBROOK «MILFORD? 


FicureE 196. FIGURE 197. 


CrititAG@ LIaAE 








* GLA WALKER Hovyst + 


STRATFORD 
* Gov. TRYMBVLL HOV/E » 


LEBAAOA 


* Coit Hovye- NorwWicnue 


FicureE 198. 


184 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


Ramps and ease-offs in the hand-rails of these late stairs are rather frequent. In very 
late work, the termination of the hand-rail at the bottom of the flight was often of helical 
form, and was supported by an attenuated newel, generally in the form of a small column, 
about which the balusters were ranked on the first tread. The stairs of the Barnabas Deane 
house in Hartford (1778) exhibit such an arrangement. (Figure 199.) 












* HVNTIAGION 
HOV/E? 


Norwicy 


*DARAABAY DLAAE 
HOV/E* 
HARTFORD 





FicuRE 199. 


* BARAABAS DLANE Hovste 
HARTFORD 









«CHAFFEE HOV/E* 
WINDSOR 


FIGURE 200. 


In work of this period, panelled wainscot applied to the stair wall, at the same height 
above the treads as the hand-rail, is very often a feature of houses which pretend to any 
degree of elegance. The upper edge of such wainscot, which is moulded, commonly 
parallels the contours of the hand-rail. (Plate XLV.) It is not unusual to find the curves 
of the ramps and ease-offs, where these are present, followed out. 

Certain features common to stairs of central-chimney houses, persisting until a late 
date, reappear in stair work of central-hall houses. For example, when the box string 
gave way and the moulded edges of the treads, together with the mouldings beneath them, 





WINDSOR 


Grant House—Easr 


Grant House—Easr WINDSOR 








SILAS DEANE HousE—WETHERSFIELD 
PLrate XLVI 


WesBB HousE—WETHERSFIELD 











a in : ™ y al 
‘ 7 2 _ 
“a 
+ a pp a 
. 2 
* 
7 - 7 
4s 
a 
{ 
¥ ¢ ae 
= : ws 
a ic 
! - 4 A ; 
? 
Li y 
e.* . . _ a 
ae 
ar = oe 
= 
, - 
. » 
if ' 
rx 
: } 
+ \ 
a | 
: } 
ne 
: 
~ 
. 
« 


i 


eS 


eS 


Se Se eee 


- ov — Soa, = eS ee 


The Stairs | 185 


were returned against the string, a common decorative feature was the scroll-shaped 
bracket, cut out of thin wood and applied beneath them. (Figure 200.) These brackets are 
to be found in an almost endless variety of forms; it appears that a different outline was 
designed for each staircase. The usual thickness of 
the material from which such brackets were cut is 
about one-half inch. The contour of such brackets 
was so designed that the outline of each is a continua- 
tion of those above and below it. (Figure 200.) The 
boxed form of staircase, with the under side of the 
treads and risers panelled, was apparently not used 
in Connecticut. 

Hand-rails of late staircases did not vary greatly 
in section from the forms established in front-entry 
stair work. The use of a rail of unsymmetrical sec- 
tion, moulded on one side only, is, however, rare in 
central-hall houses, though it does occur occasionally, Ficure 201. 
as in the Coit house in Norwich (1785). 

An unusual treatment of the stairs may be seen in the Dr. Richard Noyes house in 
Lyme (1814). A half rail, with half balusters below it, has been applied to the plaster 
wall, repeating the rail and balusters of full section on the open side of the stairs. (Plate 
XLV.) The balusters of this staircase are quite uncommon in form. They are square in sec- 





SECTION OF 
DrAGLLN Vast bare 


Dr. RichHaryvy NOYES HOVSE-LIYME 






Exys Byiir 
Jnto MASONRY ~ 





IZ 


LET COA SO Sit Fs 


Sea WE LANL tay Woh See oy Set pV Oh OA ee g 
A MOVITHROT Hoveiclas rt Wari ay 


FIGURE 202. 


tion, set diagonally upon the treads, and each side is channelled with two vertical flutes. 
(Figure 201.) Balusters of a similar section were used in the Judge William Noyes house 
in the same town (1756). 

Back stairs came into existence at the time of the lean-to addition. In houses of central- 
chimney plan they are commonly found at one end of the kitchen, between it and the 


186 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


buttery or the corner bedroom. These stairs were always enclosed, usually with vertical 
wainscot; and they were purely utilitarian, no ornamentation ever being lavished on them, 
as it was on the front stairs. Once the back stairs became established, the space beneath 
them was utilized for stairs to the cellar, which had hitherto been situated beneath the 
front stairs, leading downward from the hall. Cellar stairs accessible through a door 


opening into the stair porch are very rare. 






L oy TCtion 
a fo Or TREAJ®* 
1 Ce iA Rone tea a eee 


“BECK LUY HOUy Ent ee 


FIGURE 203. 





Ua iniiee wags We 
CONSTRYVCTION® 











































































































/ PIERPOAT HOVSE-AEW HAVEN 7 


FIGURE 204. 





The Stairs 187 


Cellar stairs of the earliest type, such as occur in front of the chimney stack in houses 
of two-room plan, were of either stone or solid oak logs. When made of logs of rectangular 
section, like those in the Moulthrop house in East Haven (circa 1690), they were generally 





Tot Ay Re eG O OW SPTESY Casa) OLA 
Sop Yeseh A LL Oi vate Ske ROOK S 


FIGURE 205. 


built into the masonry walls which enclosed them on either side. (Figure 202.) Some 
houses, such as the Thomas Lee house in East Lyme (1664) and the Beckley house near 
Berlin (circa 1685), have cellar stairs made of solid oak logs of triangular section, secured 
with wooden pins to heavy string pieces. (Figure 203.) Solid wooden steps are rare, and 
but few specimens remain to-day. Work of this sort has a distinctively English flavor. 


188 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


(A cottage in Upper Midhope, England, has a flight leading to the second floor, built of 
oak logs of triangular section, carried on wooden stringers hewn from heavy logs.) The 
Graves house in Madison (1675), the Linsley house in North Branford (circa 1700), and 
the Allen Smith house in Milford (circa 1690) all have stone steps leading down to the 
cellar, in front of the central chimney stack. This form of construction is not often found ; 
where it exists, it is a sign of early work. Later types of cellar stairs were simply built of 
sawn lumber, and have no features of special interest. 







Sige ee J 
SERS Sa 7 if ; Y E 
Se SESS 
SS Zz uy =e 
| SS Z my 2 
'S PAI my 
SZ a 3 
cele Zr ie ; oS >. 
Pec SS Ce es 
hi sie | 
SS ~ ‘ 
S 
~~ 


S HAWLEY HO VPM oR on enee 
FIcuRE 206. _ 


Attic stairs were likewise of simple construction, and in central-chimney houses are gen- 
erally to be found above those which give access to the second floor. This is especially true 
of houses which have an added lean-to. When above the main stairs, they are separated 
from the hallway of the second floor by a wainscot partition, and there is, of course, a door 
at the foot of the flight. Occasionally such stairs are fitted with a simple hand-rail. Attic 
stairs are very commonly to be found in the rear part of the house—generally at one end 
of the kitchen chamber when the house is of the central-chimney plan and has two full 
stories. Attic stairs also occupy the same position in central-hall houses. 

The attic stairs of the Cyrus Hawley house in Monroe (circa 1740) consist of a flight of 
stone steps built against one side of the central stone chimney and leading up from the 





The Stairs 189 


lean-to attic. (Figure 206.) The steps are very steep. Each is a single block of stone. The 
stones of the chimney stack are laid in clay, and the steps are bedded in the same material. 
A similar arrangement exists in the Buckingham house near Huntington (circa 1740), not 
far from Monroe; and such construction being most unusual, it is probable that both houses 
are the work of the same builder. 









Eten ties ilo Atyic 


foetal 
ics Bviitt Bevivt Curaxsy 






JEN bila MOA a da Se Otay yee 
Se NN Wel Ye OV CEM ON POLS 


FiGuRE 207. 


BES FETE EE DG FENDER IE HERDED HORDE RITE MORO 


Chapter XVIII. Mouldings 


ment of the first colonies, the main idea was to construct and not to decorate; utili- 

tatianism reigned supreme. The colonist was face to face with too serious a proposi- 
tion, time was too limited, and means were too scanty for the expenditure of any energies 
which were not directed toward the end of mere existence. We do not realize to-day how 
serious a problem confronted most of the first settlers. 

It is entirely logical, accordingly, that the first mouldings should have been semi- 
utilitarian, like those at the joints of wainscot or the boards of batten doors. Where the 
broad boards used for wainscot were fastened together with the usual form of. joint, con- 
sisting of a bevel and a quarter-round bead, such mouldings were constructive as well as 
ornamental. (Figure 174.) The joints of wainscot were formed with a “‘wainscot plough,” 
all such material being worked out by hand. If the joints were merely halved together, as 
was often done with batten doors, the quirk mouldings which embellished the joints were 
purely decorative, for they served no constructive purpose. (Figure 155.) They and the 
chamfering of exposed beams may be regarded as the first deliberate attempt at ornamenta- 
tion by means of mouldings. The chamfer, in its earliest and simplest form, consists merely 
of a bevelling of the corners of those portions of the oak framework which projected into 
the rooms. A typical example is the chamfering of the summer beams of the Dudley house 
in the town of Guilford (circa 1690), shown in Figure 76. The end of the bevel terminates 
in the common or lamb’s-tongue form of chamfer stop. The two other examples shown in 
. the same illustration have ‘a more elaborate form of chamfer, actually moulded; and the 
stops show interesting variations of the simple and more rudimentary lamb’s-tongue form. 
Elaborate and finely wrought chamfering, both exterior and interior, is a characteristic of 
the Guilford school. Moulded chamfers, corresponding in sectional contour to the cyma 
erecta and cyma reversa of Classical form, were cut into the timbers themselves. Such work 
is of the utmost interest, for it consists of frankly exposed structural forms to which a 
decorative treatment has been directly applied. Much of such work in Guilford is very 
early—as early as the last decade of the seventeenth century. Moulded chamfering, such 
as occurs on the exterior of the Hyland-Wildman house in Guilford (circa 1660), has not 
been noted elsewhere in Connecticut. 

Ornamental mouldings (using the word in its modern sense) were probably not generally 
employed until late in the first half of the eighteenth century. Mouldings of this sort 
were made by hand from inch boards by means of special planes. The introduction of 
plastering and the resultant casings of exposed constructive members such as girts, posts, 
and summers, probably had much to do with such an innovation. The use of panelled 
wainscot across the fireplace wall brought about the treatment of the projecting chimney 


|: the very earliest work, mouldings are conspicuously absent. During the early settle- 





GENERAL CowLEs HousE—FAarMINGTON 


Op TavERN—STRAITSVILLE 





‘TALMADGE HousE—LiITCHFIELD 


WarRNER HousE—CHESTER 


Pirate XLVII. 


e 


. 





Mouldings Ig! 


girt as a cornice of Classical contour, especially where pilasters were employed in connec- 
tion with the panelling. (Figure 168.) Cornices of this type usually consisted of a “crown 
moulding,” or cyma erecta and fillet, a plain fascia, and two simple “bed mouldings” be- 
neath it. A typical section is shown in Figure 149. Where pilasters are present, their capitals 
are formed by mitered projections of the bed mouldings—a satisfactory and ingenious 
arrangement. Moulding treatment of this sort, where employed in connection with the 
casing of the chimney girt, was generally 
extended along the summer beam and 
around the three remaining sides of the 
room. 

Another early use of mouldings is to be 
seen in the treatment of fireplace openings. 
In their earliest forms, such mouldings 
were inclined to be somewhat crude and of 
bold projection, lacking in general scale; 
in other words they were out of proportion 
with the work which they were used to 
finish. (Figure 208.) 

Indeed, mouldings of the earliest types 
were very generally lacking in grace and 
scale, and were of rather heavy and clumsy 
contour. Their principal characteristics, 
when they were used against a vertical 
surface, were boldness of projection and 
steepness of contour. These qualities were Figure 208. 
due, at first, to the literal adaptation of 
Classical forms primarily designed for an architecture of stone. Of some influence also 
was the fact that the English mouldings of the Jacobean period, as well as of that pre- 
ceding it—which to some extent must have affected the early builders in America—were 
for the most part cut in stone, and were therefore very full and heavy in section. 

Very soon after the introduction of mouldings there began an interesting development 
which may be regarded as a sort of evolution or process of refinement. Continuing through 
various periods, it reached its culmination only during the time which corresponds to the 
Adam era in England. In translating the proportions of Classical models into a new mate- 
rial, the American craftsman, working in wood, was not hampered by the limitations which 
bound him to certain observances in using stone. Thin edges could be formed of wood 
without danger of breakage or chipping, and flatter projections than those of the con- 
ventional forty-five degree angle were made possible without serious loss of strength. 

Besides this increasing fineness of scale and detail, two other considerations came to be 
expressed: first, the lightness and flexibility of the new material; and, secondly, the fact 
that work executed in it existed primarily for the sake of its appearance, and not as an 


1 Laks Sos yee My Pl a 


1g2 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


embodiment of rules of construction. The Classic cornice, for instance, when executed in 
stone, is built up of successive imposed courses, each member being designed actually to 
carry that above it. Such construction is logical; there is a definite reason for every mem- 
ber. In the cornice built up of wooden mouldings, this principle became lost. The bed 
mouldings, for example, in a Classical cornice, are sturdy and of short projection; their 
office is to support the members above them. In the wooden cornice, especially in late 
examples, the bed mouldings became a flattened cove of great projection, the purpose of 
which was primarily to soften the line of an internal angle. 

It may appear at first glance that such construction in wood was not so true architecturally 
as the model upon which it was based; but the point is not well taken. The inherent nature 
of the new material made the building up of superimposed members unnecessary; and a 
frank and open expression of this fact cannot be called false. 

In appraising the development of wooden mouldings, the influence of Wren’s school 
must be given due weight. Through constant intercourse with England, the spirit of 
Georgian work there was bound to be felt in, and, to a considerable extent, infused into, 
American work. Furniture was constantly being brought from England, and the influence 
of the cabinetmakers there was also a factor in the process of refinement. Moreover 
various books, published in England on the subject of architecture, or, more properly, 
building—books such as those of Asher Benjamin—helped to shape the work being done 
in America. 

In endeavoring to assign a definite period to certain mouldings, considerable difficulty 
is met with; for the same forms and quality of workmanship were not extant everywhere 
in Connecticut during a given time. Work which is primitive in conception or crude in 
execution is not necessarily of an early period; for, as in other matters, greater advance- 
ment and finer finish were the products of the more thickly populated regions, the towns. 
In poorer or more remote locations, far from the main highways which formed the main 
arteries of intercourse, less expert work may naturally be expected. Some regions were 
also much more conservative than others, more tardy in adopting innovations. In a general 
way, however, certain sections or contours are peculiar to the mouldings used during a 
given period. It is interesting to trace, as may sometimes be done, the development of a 
moulding of given section from its earliest appearance through successive changes to an 
ultimate or final form. Three mouldings of common form are shown in Figure 208. It will 
be seen that in their early forms they are literal adaptations from Classical examples cut 
in stone. In their later forms, the early steepness of the projection has given way to con- 
siderably flattened shapes which are finer in scale and far more graceful in outline than 
the originals from which they developed. 

As before stated, mouldings were made entirely by hand with a set of specially designed 
planes. Often two or even three planes were necessary to produce a moulding of given 
section. Inasmuch as every builder had his own set of planes, the individual builder often 
employed mouldings or combinations of mouldings which remained peculiar to his work 

and strongly flavored by his taste. The handicraft of a certain man may very often be — 


Mouldings 193 


traced, therefore, throughout the locality in which he worked. Old moulding planes may 
sometimes be found in use to-day, for they were simple in construction and well made, and 
they received less use than most other tools. Several years ago the writer found, in a thinly 
settled, out-of-the-way region of Connecticut, a carpenter of the old school, working with 
a set of about thirty different shapes of planes, all of them evidently very old but all still 
serviceable. He was engaged in the restoration of a house built during the 
third quarter of the eighteenth century; and his planes, or combinations of 
them, produced mouldings identical in contour with those originally used in 
the house. 

By combining various planes, then, mouldings were produced which were 
genuinely inventions of the builder. For this reason much moulded work is 
to be found which bears no imprint of Classical influence, but which is purely 
typical of the period during which it was produced. One particular moulding 
is particularly characteristic of the middle and late periods; and its repeated 
use from the Revolutionary period onward to the Greek Revival era makes py ure 209. 
it, perhaps, one of the most familiar forms to be encountered in Connecticut 
as a part of work done during that time. It is shown in section in Figure 209. Varying 
greatly in size, and of seemingly endless adaptability, it was constantly used for door and 
window trim, both interior and exterior; for the panelling of doors and shutters; in 
cornices and the entablatures of columnar porches; and in the familiar type of pilastered 
mantelpiece, where the same section was often repeated three or four times in the one 
composition. 


CB ETO ENG SG OA EY HAN AED SN MN ON SNES 


Chapter XIX. Hardware 


vestigator or the careful student, than its various items of hardware, such as hinges, 

locks, bolts, and latches. The ingenuity and genuine skill with which such articles 
were fashioned bears testimony to the fine craftsmanship of the men who wrought them. 
The most casual observer is necessarily impressed by the almost endless variety of forms 
in which certain objects appear. For instance, the wrought-iron door latch of simple 
mechanism varies from specimens of the utmost simplicity to forms of considerable 
elaboration. The inventiveness of the men who produced these articles at the forges found 
free play in such work; yet their designs, which each craftsman evidently evolved for him- 
self, were always governed by good taste and restrained by a keen sense of the beautiful. 


‘\ EW features of the old house hold greater interest, for either the amateur in- 





TIAL LEP OF SWE GR Tee ~WIANDSOR® 
*EAGLAADS® YCOAALCTICY¥ Ts 


FIGuRE 210. 


Each hinge and latch handle received the personal interest and attention of the man who 
made it; there was no such thing as quantity production. Hughes, in his History of East 
Flaven, says: “No attempt was made to manufacture anything but what was done by hand 
on the anvil under the strokes of the smith.” 

It is not improbable that much of the hardware employed in the equipment of the 
earliest houses was imported from England. Wares of this sort could be compactly packed 
in the form of ballast, and they were abundantly produced in England; whereas in 
America there were at first many factors to discourage the manufacture of such articles. 
Certainly there is often a striking resemblance between specimens of English handicraft 
and similar articles of hardware found in this country. Compare the two simple forms of 
latch handles shown in Figure 210, one from the Isle of Wight, the other from Windsor, 
Connecticut. 





Hardware 1Q5 


Hinges, latch handles, bolts, and various other articles of hardware used in the early 
Connecticut house were, for the most part, forged from wrought iron. Occasionally latch 
handles of brass are to be found (Figure 211), but they are rare by comparison with those 
of iron. Door knockers, though, were generally of brass; and it is probable that a good 
many of them were of English manufacture. 

The remarkably good state of preservation in which various articles exist to-day, after 
perhaps a century and a half of unprotected exposure to the elements, indicates without 
question the purity of the iron from which they were forged. Iron which contains but 
few impurities does not rust or oxidize rapidly; instead, it gradu- 
ally becomes covered with a thin protecting coat of patina. 

The early Court Records of New Haven contain numerous 
allusions to the manufacture of iron from the ore. Under the date 
of March 16, 1654/55 we read: “Mr. Goodyeare desired, if 
they knew of any Ironstone aboute this Towne, they would make 
it knowne, that now Mr. Winthrop* is here he may be gotten to 
judg of it, and if it prove right, and that an Iron mill might be 
set up here it would be a great advantag to the Towne.” The 
minutes of a “General Court held for New Haven Y¢ 29th of 
Novemr 1655” contain the following: “The Governor informed 
ye Towne that this meeting was called to consider something 
further aboute the Iron workes. Sundrie who ingaged to work 
last Court have not yet performed, though others have, and it ‘ 
was now concluded that those that are behinde should be called We TeelO LR 
upon to performe what they promised. It was also now desired ? 
that men will declare, who will ingage in the worke, and what FIGURE 211. 
estate they will put in; but few speaking to it, it was desired that 
those who are willing would meete at the Governors this afternoon at two a clocke, to de- 
clare themselves therein, and it was now propounded whether the Towne will give up their 
rights in Ye place, and what accomodation is necessary for the best conveniency of the 
said iron worke, & in this case all the Towne voted to give a full libertie for Ye Iron- 
workes to goe on & also for wood, water, Iron-ston, oare, shells for lime, or whatever else 
is necessary for that worke, upon Ye Townes land, or that side of Ye great river, called the 
East river; provided that no mans proprietie laid out or to be laid out be intrenched upon, 
nor no planter prohibitted from cutting wood or other conveniency upon the said common 
in an orderly way, and that Branford doe make the like grant, according to the proportion 
they have in the worke, that further questions aboute this thing may be prevented.” The 
iron works are next mentioned in the record of May 19, 1656, as follows: “Upon a motion 
made by Mr. Goodyeare and John Coopt on behalfe of the Collier that comes to burn coale 
for the Iron-worke, he have twelve act's of land granted to him as his owne, if the Iron- 
worke goe on, and he stay three yeares in the worke; provided that all minneralls ther be 





* John the younger, of New London. 





FIGURE 212. 





TG VASAT EO oe vee 


FIGURE 213. 





ST) WOU TERT ie Le 





4 


SJ ODS a A SOPRA 


FIGURE 214. 


“ae » ge abe 


Hardware 197 


reserved, and that he attend all Y* orders of the Towne, for Y¢ present, and in disposing of 
the said land hereafter, if it shall so fall out. The place propounded for to have it in, is upon 
the beavor meddow, conteyning a hundred or two hundred ac"’, aboute two miles from Y¢ 
Iron worke; against w*) grant or place none objected so as to hinder Y¢ same.” A final 
allusion to this undertaking is made in 
the record of February 19, 1685, in 
which a furnace and a “forge or two” 
are mentioned. 

The early manufacture of iron in 
Connecticut is also noted by Lambert, 

|  Y who states that a mill was established in 
BeeeoNG RIDGE JS 1655 in the colony of New Haven by 
FIGcurE 215. John Winthrop, Jr., and Stephen Good- 
year. It was situated at the southern end 
of Lake Saltonstall, and was in operation up to 1679-1680, at which time it was abandoned. 
The work of producing iron at the “Bloomery” there ceased very abruptly; for what rea- 
son, it is not known. The ore, a sesquioxide of iron, was brought from North Haven, where 
existed a deposit covering a considerable area. Dodd of East Haven states in his Register: 
“Why this business was relinquished cannot be satisfactorily ascertained. The furnace was 
supplied with bog-ore from North Haven. It was chiefly carted, but sometimes brought 
from Bogmine Wharf by water round to 
the Point below the furnace and from 
that circumstance the Point to this day is 
called ‘Bogmine.’ ” 

Iron was “wrought at the forges” of 
old Newgate Prison in East Granby, and 
large quantities of nails were manufac- 
tured there by the prisoners. It is prob- J Nort Lymt 7 
able that nails were forged at New FIGurE 216. 

Haven at a very early date from iron 

brought from England, for the Court Records of 1644 make mention of “John Thomp- 
son, nayler,” and those of 1648 order that “Whosoever shall sell nailes in this town shall 
sell six score to yt hundred.” 

According to tradition, a considerable amount of various sorts of hardware was turned 
out by individual craftsmen who worked at their own forges in different localities. This 
usage may largely account for the broad diversity of forms in which certain articles 
appear. Owing to their general lack of similarity, it is somewhat difficult to make coherent 
groups of the types of latches, hinges, and other products, and the classification can be 
accomplished only in a broad way. 

The earliest types of door hinges are undoubtedly those of strap form, such as are 
shown in Figure 212. Hinges of this variety are usually very long: specimens measuring 








198 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


two feet or more in length are not uncommon. The butt end of each hinge was formed 
into an eye, which was hung upon a shouldered iron peg driven into the door jamb. Strap 
hinges were used more than any other variety for hanging exterior doors, and their use 
there persisted until a fairly late date. The “snake” hinge (Figure 213) is a pleasing varia- 
tion which does not commonly occur in Connecticut. It is plainly an attempt at decorative 


G.¥.1 LF Oskegaae 


FIGuRE 218. 





SF GYRE OP Rae 





FIGURE 219. FIGURE 220. 


form, and its undulant outline is very pleasing. This specimen was in use on an inside door, 
as were the two hinges shown in Figure 214. The upper example shown in this illustration 
is unusual because of its bifurcated termination; that beneath it is noteworthy because it 
shows a transitional form which developed from the strap hinge. A somewhat similar, 
though possibly earlier, specimen is shown in Figure 216. A plate of more or less orna- 
mental form has replaced the peg of the earlier type. This hinge is a rare specimen; the 
writer has seen its like but twice in Connecticut. Three other examples of “half-strap” form 
are shown in Figure 217. The two lower hinges in the illustration were taken from cupboard 





med 





Deminc HousE—FaRMINGTON 





“HisroRICAL HousE”—SouTH NoRWALK CHAMPION HousE—East HappAM 


Pirate XLVIII. 


Se 





doors; that above them is a regu- 
lar door hinge. Eventually this 
strap form disappeared, and a 
hinge which more resembled the 
modern “butt” took its place. 
The “butterfly” hinge, shown 
on the left in Figure 218, is a very 
old form of English origin. It oc- 
curs on chests of English work- 
manship which date back to the 
sixteenth century. The hinge 
shown to the right of it is a later 
variation. Both were serving on 
cupboard doors. The three cuts or 
notches on either outside margin 
of the butterfly hinge illustrated 


Hardware 





v STRATFORD ©: 


m9 








«WINDSOR 


FIGURE 221. 


are common characteristics; so are the leather washers inserted under the heads of the 
nails by which it is secured. Red morocco leather was generally used for this purpose; its 
brilliant color, where it has not been obscured by successive coats of paint, makes it of 
considerable decorative value. Sometimes leather was also used in this same manner in 
fastening hinges of earlier type, such as those of strap form. Butterfly hinges were prin- 





wee oA M PoE NS 


FIGURE 222. 


cipally used in hanging cupboard doors, though larger 
forms were sometimes used for regular inside doors as 
well. The transition is easy from hinges of the butterfly 
type to specimens which more resemble the modern article, 
such as those shown in Figure 219. The somewhat fanciful 
shape and graceful outline have given way to a simple, 
purely utilitarian form. 

Two familiar forms of hinge, both very commonly 
used, are shown in Figure 220. They are known as (1) 
the H-and-L and (2) the H hinge. Not so early as the 
strap hinge, they were widely used until a very late date; 
sometimes they occur in work of 1800 or even later. H 
and H-and-L hinges were used more commonly than any 
other variety for hanging interior doors; in fact, they 
appear to have been the conventional forms for this pur- 
pose. Their average measurement is about eight or nine 
inches, though here and there specimens are found of 
much greater size. Those on the front door of the Captain 
Ambrose Whittlesey house in Saybrook (1799) are thir- 
teen inches wide and the same in height. H-and-L 


200 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


hinges are rarely used in this manner for hanging exterior doors: strap hinges were the 
favorite sort for that purpose. A more decorative form of the H hinge is also shown in 
Figure 220. Hinges of this sort, of three lobed termination and cross scored, were generally 
used for inside shutters and cupboard doors. 

The hinge shown in Figure 222 is an extremely rare and unusually elaborate form. When 
discovered, it was serving as a barn door hinge; but it is not probable that it was originally 
wrought for such a purpose. An equally rare specimen is that illustrated in Figure 223. Its 
decorative form reaches far back into antiquity, the “‘cock’s head” terminations which it 
displays being a traditional heritage from Roman times. In the house from which this 
hinge was taken, similar specimens were serving on wall and corner cupboard doors. 


2-7 





\ 
SS ECK EE eeHO Vettes | 
AM IRAP Lt 
FIGURE 223. 


JS Colt) Poa 


FIGURE 224. 





Hardware 201 


The set of exterior door hinges from the Deming house in Colchester (1 771), illustrated 
in Figure 224, are splendid specimens. They have not only an ornamental value, but a 
structural one as well, for their great size and peculiar shape make the door much more 
rigid and add to its strength. 

A study of latches and, more particularly, of their handles, unearths many striking and 
curious specimens. The broad diversity of forms to be encountered on every hand, together 
with the general lack of similarity in design except in the simplest examples, speaks elo- 
quently of the skilled artistry of the men who forged them. 





aM ERA eR Vie Ls ba /- 


FIGURE 225. 


A great proportion of such latch handles, especially those of an early period, designed 
for use on outside doors, were of comparatively large size. Those shown in Figures 226 
and 227 are early forms; both are bold and vigorous in design. Notches, or V-shaped in- 
cisions in the handle, such as the specimen shows in Figure 228, are a common feature. In 
some instances an attempt at ornamentation was made by scoring the handles with hori- 
zontal cuts from a chisel or other edged tool. The iron latch shown in Figure 229, from an 
outside door of the Chaffee house in Windsor, bears the date of building of the house 
(1776), pricked into the handle. What is perhaps the most typical form of iron latch 
handle to be found in Connecticut is that illustrated in Figure 230. The use of square bits 
of red Morocco leather under the nail heads is characteristic. 

The latch handle shown in Figure 231, though of common form, is extraordinary in 
size; and for this reason it is a decorative feature of much interest and value. Although 


¢ 
PN 
ce) 





CHAVLYAL FERRY © 


FIGURE 226. 





JIRATFORD 





FIGURE 227. 


8h 


: 
N 
_ 





CHAFFEE HOV/JE 


FIGURE 229. 





COL CWE Site 
FIGURE 230. 


Hardware 203 


not strictly within the confines of domestic architecture, a wrought-iron latch handle from 
the church door at Middle Haddam, one of unusual size and exceedingly handsome form, 
is illustrated in Figure 232. 

Specimens such as those shown in Figure 233, though they represent a very common 
type, belong to a much later period. They are of much smaller size than those earlier in 
use; and being, apparently, “shop made,” they are of considerably 
less interest than the foregoing examples, which were all hand- 
wrought. The little fillet of pewter applied to the handle is a char- 
acteristic feature of latches of this type. The use of small-headed 
nails in place of the hand-forged variety with large flat heads de- 
tracts considerably from the general interest and decorative value 
of these latches of later type. 

It is quite probable that, during the earliest period of the colony, 
wooden latches, such as the one shown in Figure 235, were in com- 
mon use, especially on doors in the less important parts of the house 
—e.g., those of the rear rooms and those on the second floor. The 
latch from which the illustration was made was on a door opening 
from the kitchen chamber of the Caleb Dudley house in Guilford, 
built about 1690, and is doubtlessly as old as the house itself. A ‘0 
somewhat similar latch of wood secures a door of one of the rear | 
rooms on the second floor of the Graves house in Madison (1675). 
Latches of this sort possess that oft-quoted feature, the latch-string. 

During the latter part of the eighteenth century the wrought-iron 
latches gave way to the iron lock of familiar form. This was applied 
to the surface of the door, and operated by a small egg-shaped knob 
of brass. Such locks were not often mortised into the doors, as 1s 
customary to-day. This type of inside door fastening is frequently 
met with as a part of work built after 1800. 

In addition to the arrangement of a horizontal wooden bar across 
the inner side of an exterior door, various forms of wrought-iron 
bolts were common means of outside door fastening. Two typical » myppit 
specimens are shown in Figure 237. Locks did not come into general HADDAM » 
use until after Revolutionary times. Early examples are very often FIcure 232. 
fitted with clumsy wooden casings, such as that illustrated in Figure 
238. The working parts, of course, are of metal. 

Several specimens of hand-forged nails are shown in Figure 239. Their use covers a 
wide period, from very early until—in some parts of Connecticut—after 1800. Wrought- 
iron nails were used in every part of the house construction except in fastening together 
the oak framework, for which purpose, of course, oaken pegs were used. The smallest 
nail shown in the illustration is of the sort used in finishing interior woodwork, especially 
mouldings. Its peculiar shape was such that it could be driven into woodwork so that its 
head did not remain exposed. It was accordingly the “finishing-nail” of early days. 








Pirkid HOovyeE 
oS Nore Olea LAST HARTFORD 


FIGURE 233. FIGURE 234. 





BECKLEY HOvsE 
Bl Ravers 


FIGURE 235. FIGuRE 236. 








Hardware 205 














1%6— 
meer kW 1th VD bie he Nee aes 
FIGURE 237. FIGuRE 238. 


Wrought-iron nails were succeeded in use by machine-made “cut nails,” probably be- 
cause of their comparative cheapness, which was in turn due to greater ease of production. 
Not only were they inferior in strength and lasting qualities to the hand-forged variety, 
but they lacked the large flattened heads of the earlier sort. A decorative feature of con- 
siderable value was accordingly lost with the passing of the hand-wrought nail. A house 





FIGURE 239. 


covered with clapboards, laid in courses of graduated exposure and secured by wrought 
nails with irregularly shaped heads of one-half- or three-fourths-inch diameter, occurring 
at regular intervals, possesses a distinction which is entirely lacking where no nail heads 
appear. 

The great majority of the various forms of knockers which adorn the front entrance 
doors of so many old houses do not date back so far as the houses themselves. As most 
of them exhibit strong Adam influence, they are necessarily of comparatively late work- 
manship. Knockers were not employed on the doors of the earliest houses; knuckles served 
instead. The wrought-iron knocker shown in Figure 240, from the front door of the older 


206 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


Silliman house near Fairfield (circa 1730), is undoubtedly of very early workmanship: 
possibly it is of English make. The knocker illustrated in Plate XLVIII from the Warner 
house near Chester (1793) is an unusually fine specimen. It is made of cast bronze, and 
beautifully finished. A cast-iron knocker from the so-called Historical House in Norwalk 
(circa 1750) is also shown in Plate XLVIII. Most door knockers, however, were of cast 
brass, polished and buffed to a high finish. It is probable that they were largely produced in 
England and imported to this country. Cast-iron specimens such as that shown in Plate 


p 
. ” < ¥ 
} een et 


ath EE ef 
: eouytys ATT 





ts I 


ee aT © 


SSS 









: 





Th ‘ Aoi pq 
u 


"TRON KNOCKER. == NILA = 
ecae Arr 2 Eo ic 
Loy SAT ANT ROYa Eater nee 


TU RU 


FIGURE 240. FIGURE 241. 


XLVIII do not occur so commonly as brass, for, unless plated with some non-rusting metal 
or else painted, they soon became disfigured with rust. One of the chief attractions of the 
brass knocker is the resplendent polish which may be produced by diligent rubbing. The iron 
knocker which is illustrated was originally plated with “water gilt,” traces of which still 
remain. It is on the side or garden door of the Champion house in East Haddam (1794). 

Blind catches of familiar form, constructed of wrought iron, must also be included in a 
discussion of hardware. A typical specimen is illustrated in Figure 241. Since the blind was 
a late feature, these fastenings were also of late date. 

Wrought-iron foot scrapers occur commonly and in many forms. Often strikingly 
handsome in design, they display a great deal of style and elegance as well as of skilled and 
careful workmanship. They, too, belong to a late period. 

The discussion of this topic cannot be closed without at least a brief mention of the 
iron cranes which still hang in so many fireplaces. They are generally to be found—or so, 
at least, are the eyes which supported them, driven into the masonry—in the fireplaces of 
the hall and kitchen (for these were the rooms in which the cooking was done). Some of 





Hardware 207 


these old cranes still retain their full complement of pot hooks and trammel bars—the 
latter being adjustable arrangements for hanging kettles at any desired height above the 
fire. Now and then a fireplace is found which has only a straight iron bar extending across 
it, built into the masonry on either side. This arrangement is not so common as the crane; 
but it is perhaps even more antique. 





wea SiC VO IAGUH aL OCA AY 
PNA eet OL LAAT ECS 


FIGURE 242. 





BPP S I ELD ENGI I DY DE ESO EEN SON ESN EE MES 


ACADIAN HOUSE, g, 11. 
Added leanto, 8, 9, 11. 
Allyn house, 65. 

Atwater quoted, 6, 57, 58, 78. 
Avery house, 26. 


BALDWIN HOUSE, 26. 

Bake ovens, 73. 

Balusters, 176, 177, 180, 181, 185. 

Baseboards, 138, 139, 147. 

Bassett house, 100, 114, 115, 129. 

Beach, Benjamin, house, 131. 

Beers house, 86. 

Belden house, 93. 

Benjamin house, 56. 

Bidwell-Mix house, 36, 50. 

Bishop, Philo, house, 102. 

Blinds, roo. 

Blind catches, 206. 

Bolection mouldings, 151, 152. 

Bolts, 203. 

Braces, 60. 

Brackets, 63. 

Bradley house, Branford, 50. 

Bradley house, New Haven, 86. 

Bradley, Eri, house, 66. 

Bradley, Joel, house, 20, 60, 74, 75, 
79. 

Bradley-Tyler house, 55. 

Brass hardware, 195. 

Brick, 78, 79. 

Brick houses, 20, 65, 79. 

Buckingham house, 73, 83, 145. 

Burnham-March house, 16. 

Bushnell house, Older, 7, 26, 30, 33, 
7. 

Butler’s Tavern, 72. 


CALDWELL HOUSE, 64, 67. 

Casements, 87, 88, 89. 

Casing of structural members, 139, 
(40, 14%, 143. 

Cellars, 69. 

Central-hall plan, 16, 17. 

Chair rail, 147. 

Chamfering, 190. 


Index 


Chimneys, 14, 71, 72, 73, 78. 

Chimney viewer, 58. 

Churchill, Capt. Charles, house, 74, 
759 77) 113. 

Chaffee house, 20, 201. 

Champion house, 120, 140, 143, 
206. 

Clapboards, 11, 81, 82, 133. 

Clapboards, graduated, 84. 

Closets, 171, 172. 

Closets, secret, 172. 

Collar beams, 44, 45. 

Comparison of Orders, 115. 

Corbels, 64. 

Cornice rake, 131. 

Cornwell house, 119, 130. 

Cowles, Admiral, house, 120. 

Cowles house, Older, 63. 

Crandall, Prudence, house, 61, 120. 

Cranes, 206. 

Cupboards, glazed door, 169, 170. 

Curtis, Freeman, house, 26, 73. 


DANFORTH HOUSE, 74. 

Deane, Barnabas, house, 69. 
Deane, Silas, house, 77. 

Deming house, Colchester, 140, 201. 
Deming, Henry, house, 77. 

Dudley, Caleb, house, 37, 145, 203. 
Dodd, quoted, 197. 

Doors, batten, 135, 137. 

Doors, Dutch, 103. 

Doors, inside, 137, 138. 

Doors, exterior, 103, 105, 109, 114. 
Door knockers, 205, 206. 

Drops, 62, 63. 


EARLY settlements, 5, 6. 
Ells, 17. 

“Elm Fort,” 79. 

Evarts Tavern, 52, 123, 132. 


FENESTRATION, 97, 98. 
Fenwick house, 6. 
Flooring, 132, 133. 
Fireplaces, 73, 74, 75. 


Flues, 75. 
Forbes or Barnes house, 21, Sas 
Fowler, Miner, house, 69. 


GABLE framing, 34. 

Gambrel roof, 59, 60. 

Gay house, 61, 120, 143. 

Girts, 31, 32) 34- 

Girts, cantilevered, 52, 55, 56, 123, 
L26, 127. 

Girts, chamfered, 63, 64, 67, 139. 

Glass, 87, 92, 96, 97, 102, 103. 

Gleason house, 31, 63. 

Glebe house, 60. 

Grant house, 71, 112. 

Graves house, 12, 65, 203. 

Griswold, Ezra, house, 135. 

Gutters, 130. 


HALE HOUSE, Glastonbury, 85. 

Hall house, Cheshire, 34, 53, 56. 

Hand rail, 177, 178, 180, 184, 185. 

Hawley, Cyrus, house, 69, 117. 

Harrison-Linsley house, 9, 30, 47, 
135. 

Hearths, 76, 77. 

Hempstead house, 11, 26, 58, 65, 
69, 90. 

Hewing, 22, 24. 

Hinges, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201. 

Hinges, butterfly, 199. 

Hinges, H-and-L, 199. 

Hip roofs, 61. 

“Historical House,” 206. 

Hollister house, 64. 

Hotchkiss, Deacon Stephen, house, 
37) 525 127. 

Hughes quoted, 194. 

Hubbard house, 67. 

Hull house, 105. 

Huntington, Jabez, house, 135. 

Huntington, Rev. Dr., house, 14. 

Hurd house, 83. 

Hyland-Wildman house, 63, 64, 73, 
88. 


210 The Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut 


INTEGRAL LEANTO, 12. 
Iron firebacks, 165. 


JOHNSON, CAPTAIN, HOUSE, 
72. 

Joists, 36, 37. 

Judson, William, house, 103. 


KING HOUSE, Suffield, 135. 
Knell house, 85. 


LAMBERT quoted, 5, 25, 89, 197. 

Latches, 201-203. 

Latches, wooden, 203. 

Lath, 160. 

Leaded glass, 115, 119, 120. 

Leader heads, 130. 

Leanto plan, 8, 12. 

Lee, Thomas, house, 7, 11, 87, 145. 

Leete, Governor, house, 89. 

Lewis, Colonel, house, 120. 

Lime, 70. 

Linsley house, North Branford, 126, 
145. 

Linsley house, Stratford, 100. 

Locks, 203. 

Loomis house, 83, 135. 

Lyons house, 80, 85. 


MALLETT HOUSE, 85. 

Masonry ended houses, 20. 

Mather, Samuel, house, 84, 108. 

Meggatt house, 71. 

Merriam, Burrage, house, 71, 78. 

Moore house, 21, 34, 63, 65. 

Morris house, 20, 50, 70. 

Moulding planes, 192, 193. 

Moulthrop house, 48, 51, 58, 79, 
132, ¥33- 

Mullioned windows, go. 

Muntins, 95. 


NAILS, 197, 203, 205. 

Newells, 176, 178, 179, 180, 184. 

New Haven Court Records, 9, 24, 
57) 70, 78, 82, 85, 87, 160, 195. 

North, Isaac, house, 79, 80. 

Norton house, 6, 7, 40, 41, 128. 


OLD INN at East Windsor, 110, 
£33. 

“Old South Middle,” 79. 

Noyes house, Older, 141. 

One room plan, 7, 11. 

Orton house, 71, 80. 

Overhang, hewn, 64. 

Overhang, origin, 62. 


PAGE, MARTIN, HOUSE, 74, 
135. 

Palfrey, History of Guilford, 57, 
58. 

Palladian windows, 99, 100, 129. 

Panelling, 148, 151, 152, 159, 160. 

Pardee house, 128. 

Parsonage, Monroe, 139. 

Phelps, Bildad, house, 143. 

Pitkin house, 17, 60. 

Plank-frame houses, 40, 41, 134. 

Plastering, 67, 68, 146, 160. 

Plaster cornice, exterior, 128. 

Plate, 33, 34. 

Posts, 26, 27, 30, 31, 41, 43. 

Posts, flare of, 27, 30. 

Purlins, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 525 
55, 60, 61. 


RAFTERS, common, 44, 45. 

Rafter footing, 46. 

Rafters, principal, 46, 47, 50, 52, 
55. 

Rafters, sizes of, 45, 47, 48, 50. 

Rankin house, 115. 

Ridgepole, 46, 52. 

Ripley house, 71. 

Robbins house, 78. 

Robinson house, go. 

Roll mouldings, 151, 163, 164. 

Roof boarding, 46, 133. 

Roof pitch, 4, 50, 51, 56, 58, 61. 


SASH, thickness of, 93, 94. 
Saunders house, 72. 
Sawing, 22, 24, 134, 135. 
Sheathing, 133, 134. 
Shingles, 84, 85, 133, 134. 
Shutters, inside, 143. 

Side entrances, 120, 121. 
Sills, 24, 253.26, 36, 40. 
Sheldon Tavern, 120. 


Shelley house, 88. 

Sherman house, 143. 

Smith, Allen, house, 66, 127, 133. 

Smoke ovens, 77. 

Sparking-bench, 180. 

Stairs, attic, 188, 189. 

Stairs, back, 185, 186. 

Stairs, cellar, 8, 174, 2£975)5287, 
188. 

Starr house, 30. 

Stevens house, 36. 

Stowe house, 34. 

Stratford Inn, 106. 

Strong, Nathaniel, house, 37. 

Strong, Timothy, house, 20. 

Studs, 40. 

Summers, 32, 36. 

Summers, disappearance of, 67, 68. 

Summers, second story, 53. 


TAINTOR HOUSE, 6. 
Talcott house, 73. 

Thatch, 6, 49, 56, 57- 

Thatch poles, 58. 

Thorpe quoted, roo. 
Transoms, 102, 121. 

Treat, Governor, house, 58, 89. 
Trim, inside, 138. 

Trumbull, Governor, house, 143. 
Trumbull house, 14, 93, 108. 
Tuttle house, 72, 79. 
Two-room plan, 7, 11. 

Tyler house, 9, 106, 145. 


UNDERPINNING, 70, 71. 


WAINSCOT, 145, 146, 184, 186, 
190. 

Walker, General, house, 77. 

Webb-Welles house, 17, 60, 138. 

Webster, Samuel, house, 79. 

Welles-Shipman house, 73, 140. 

“White Farm,” 75. 

Whitman house, 63, 89. 

Whittlesey, Captain Ambrose, house, 
199. 

Williams house, Older, 7, 8, 37,5 
T2775 003 Se Gaos 

Williams, Warham, house, 13, 110, 
141. 








am 
Spear 


G1). 








dv 
7 

> 

c 


ae 
‘ 


ee) * 


GETTY CENTER LIBRA \RY 


MIT il 


3 3125 00601 4704 





; 
} 
aa 
4 
44 



















tea 
* 
* 










i" 


it 
it 
te! 
att 
j 


ate 
hd 





ti 





Ty 
" 









ieeael 


rah 
teary 
oaeee 


peateereses es eSess etree ts 
Bae pee we Rebs FEES SASS reees eee alaeeed 
Sb- bbe Sabing eb ate ood ait ete eed ee Sees Ce eases eeaneeb ee 





} 
j 
H 


nese 





* 
Yeatrae 


iit 
wee 

’ 
1 





sHtt 
itt 
t 
{ 
if 
if 
it 
i 
i 
+e 
Lad 
ie 
i 
i 
. 
i 
f 
i 
# 
ee 
te 
i 
i 
- 
if 


: 
t 
: 
: 
t 
{ 
t 
t 
i 
' 
; 
; 
i 
7 
t 
: 
! 
+ 
; 
f 
; 
{ 
+ 


s roxas Se 
[eennoennsiid rsasess 


{ 





se 
(3 
* 
i 
. 
i 
t 
+ 
t 
? 
f 
4 
; 
7 
- 
’ 
i 
2 
+ 
b 
. 
iS 
iY 
ta 
‘ 
. 
* 


$ret tit tress tet 
S55 Saat Sy ene a 
Pe Se Sere ee tee etree Peete eee etree error tree re 
Eee hse SEyae sirssty DRS eee eee << eRe eee wie eee wee eae hn ee oe 
et TE ES SEN SADE REA ee ee RAR EE TREES OE EEE RED. 

She SeE ase bean teen Sede hee eee ete ae See tee ett e el 
.<ate Ns were ee we See aN eee ee eee oe ee = - 

TLV RS Neen ews 






arate 
past 


perperere 


skp eerste ese ce ep reat epee reese ses 
[ood we We asa ee Spee er: 








peeriat 
itis: 
Phd 
ie 





yee 
ee ete 


tye 
peresee 





+ 
“e 
{ 
oe 


aver 

a 
1 
*. 
tt 
’ 
i 
' 
t 
v 
; 





7 
. 
. 





SaaS rae eS SS ae reet 
rise eeetateettcte este pos rere WSUS kL eee PSR arp we we eee eee en oe ee ee = 
+iivus Gbarenewnes ee Sap eer stew ewer se Sele sel TIS See 
> SSS Ss oe ee erste 
SS SSS SESS Se ES SSS Se SSS SS SSE SES esas wee 
Wit ee Sse iat yu re eek pwe ca ay SENS eS UR Oe eS al eee PREPS Seep eee eee. 
pepeptrsiirist ee tistics eee tet eee eee tte 
ee EES EES eS iitsp 
Stet iiatieseesar ete beeetes 





ebay 

aay 
4 
y 
¥ 
} 
! 
: 
t 
t 
} 
t 
‘ 


serene et 
t 
+ 
¥ 
’ 
‘ 
‘ 
+ 
+ 
] 
4 
¥ 
i 
"i 
{ 
* 
t 
i 
: 
} 
+ 
+ 
+ 
t 
, 
+ 
N 
) 
f 


nith 


t 
Bitet 





ast 
! 





H - 
Ht 


FePEeeee eat erecenn 


t 
+ 
ey 


bees 







ertagh 
sit 
esata 
heey 


i 
$33 





+} 
‘4 
pitictoss 
Hib} 
ests 
ats 
ipabths 
et 
} 





‘| 
why 














aot 
4 








ye 
eee 


So RSE a OEE T OST eRe ER TE TSE SOS Re ee ee Oe OEE Sele ate eleeaeeen eee ss 
Sha Prd eh ee het ee Ure ETE See Seen eeyekebed Steg b eee ates aes ee eee < Sere SSS STS 


Treks yi eee eee. Satie: 
Sezesecr eet. eae 
ee 
= 


i 
eererersye 


Hite 
: 
| 
f 
' 
; 
t 
‘ 
: 
; 
t 
f 
t 
: 
. 
{ 
; 
. 
f 


Hat 
> 
id 
r 
4 
x 
% 


323 


SHEET e Sst e heel e eset eee e ee =o 
eee ries ap ao er ale ale a ey Oe Re ENO SNe E TSE Ee ee eR er ele ee Ege es Le ew eee 
eS RN os ee ee eee eee ee ee PEE See Tee eS ee 
Tae ee 


beens tet 
pe eee eee rts et eet tt eee Sovestseareneescp ests o=3e~s 
septa ae ae oa ee Ss kines woke oe Sse plers tet escsew eset esse ene ae 


t 





Tis! 
ye 


He 
one ee Sehr ke ae ee ery 
tt eo oe oe 





i 
¢ 
were eee 


oe 


ee ee ete ET STO Ore OM 


ee oro 
pesetese es eases SaSe warp Saane Sheet ee : 
pepe eee e ee eee cae b we rew ars web hw pre nen BEE STEEP TS ESS Spe Sa Reese ree vase aress nearest ' 
S hakemned lalpdb died Inde ted ip dh ed intend oda ddedtehehdnehtehdiehettheh oe —- a ae sob bates . D296 64-9 68 e+ * 

pa iisietsesitssiss Araeewsreepeee eran preee ne wena tas ey eS Pere Weep Bre eee, ~ 

oo ee ree center ers! SSeS Bree Te os Bae asa a ors: 











perererersaerert 


anes 





f 





sss 










ste 
af 
Farere 
shenee 
® 





ep eeeert tease 


. 
. 
> 


rehe 


* 


then 


= 


sitrieticste 





t 
Hi 


. 
‘ 
Risbibataled ohare 
- 
f 
‘ 


eeey 


t 
reve 


' 


yan Gn eone  ny 
eee ot 








W 


ee Se ene Oe ee ve ae 
oe ee ee 
gieteeserrates sacisiiepsese 
Becsssstetpessresestssitstst erst ciety sy 


rSesthres 








ibs 
iri 
lone; 





stieiey 
ne 
iH 


ether 


+ 





rf 
: 
thea 


or 
Ser 
perp ap ae eee Teens tis ea len ias to esesa pes ey ee egey seater eeererane Se re pare ew So ee ee Rae Sea. 
eee SESE PS SS a ae seeee 
Pere eres Sebibbebodbihbe bee bttee eee Bee ee cose 
SRO RS OE EON LR ee IN ST TENE RO ENTE CRIS ee ost ew tee aes iss $4 ewer: 
ca of 





i 


bid 
ea 








ae etat bias 


+e 

be 
Set 
$ 


oebetheeell = pesoes Stee vee eee” peep wee re Saree 
= 


tty 


> 
Re Sa chained behead LA LE MR hO  MRAEO E oe 
Da eC bak pie ws wa ese se peewee) ot cf + : 78 
See idle hE EOE OSES Re St btn binban en benlh bane bern per g—-5 24 eerie eS: oe ee es 
Lag Fees ae ei rate Fe ee abe kas rece ees Warten ap Weert PRES ape wap S ePaper Sehr ee. 
ib ted nh aed etbab taeda etededebad ae ahah eet eee en eee a ~ Sot eo eens ale edhaiethanedh dedobed ae a 
Srp ese Sas ae ceepetoerern epee Tt 
Salvbn dads feta sSsrs Sets ee ae ress srersrare ines SPSS S TTS ee 
Paeges tere lo ts taeet aslo ns SeSO PSSA a Ee eee ee See Sale ee es Sat eee eae anes Peel tasesapres tataee 
Sti SSS ee o—3s ane 
Se OG OO Eh mh —F -8 —S ee 
See pip esate ee een pe pene eee en ren peee gre eere rere eee ae 
SeS Eph ee eee te ae ike Feet rs eer e we werere et 
ele rs baa pte se wees Se reat epee re hs eee ees Teese ee Forae te .—o-—1—9— : 
pigh ft pis betoe eS plsi cist ie he eine tes pmees pea vewe 6 hh ae 9 
DNDN EY eae ep Sewn eh s ewe ba ya ey mre ONE R eS 2 ERE RSE ESPN. 


S523 Sepaean ce 
— $738 9—-8 7 Saeeseletss sae erreur teed 
: : : a Srebarsbanseeracnls 3 
Pht nitepeette esate Perestrerree noes Saar aero ets 
peretoiitarsresstcrsreet see e ee eer seer ep sstaes tals Sere ais aee seis ee iat eete ee gere pesreeersiissrsigrersisstistniesesraseseepereeepes sey 
Sirprs: “ Setatstetess pesibstes 


hat 
pbk 
ye 
’ 
€ 
+ 





Tit 





i 





bik 
see 

rors 

t 





at 
ath 
rd 





i 

’ 

u 

, 
seeehenpat 


+ 
+ 





ir ieh4 


Hervey 
islet 
4 


reeks 
Hot 
th 


ri 
oe 




















4 ees 
oe Sea ee ets 
Seen Warr 









ri 
- 









t 
t 
i 
| 
) 
i; 
| 








babs 
i 


aeetitey 
ra 


ese 

SR ea me eee PRS ES OSS CIEL ES SES ES Ee Re ESS See Set ee ee ee eer 

Pse4tee et bebe tesa eae Re Rae ke Se eh Vara tes : 
ae a ee oe 


& 
xt Pete SSS Seve el eS eee pis tse tases Pert eepeee: ree oe *. 
Se rere ap arabs carpe yp epee ep eens Pee e epg eet apes eee ge peseeers [Sieees = 
LPP RN EMER A EM ETRE ERENCE R TAR RES TOD we ee Se eee SS 
Spry ele gegr ce pegeseusprsryeaecetege : re e—% 9 Oe Oe eee 

> Debs See oe Se bet eR is 2s tea + Te SSR es oS oe ey rete ee otras eee tb peo 

So Se ne er Sahendhdieibeed-tedseedy- tot ad tock oc eho eteed pnd e-bande id + Se oe ee de od ee oh edad eae —e Pee eee 
ee Te SAA a ee a ae ae eer eore. web Shs PeeS SS ets ee ees s ere es. 


44 
pists 


















REAR RIE EFS Se Oe Re ie 8 ERE ES NEED REEL OED DOE OO ek Ca Te TOM 

Ce EE ne Ree EE SES Ee PTE R AAO EE NE et Le eee eh Ee OR ee Oe 

estes tateteteeeiceei epee babsness ep ey epee eels wee eee ee te ee ee 
— 


ss prerprsasserarase Seen pee sere eee peers bso ess ee stat ssseress 
Re a Sette 
ern: = 










Seteee 
rterssrse> 






Neral erste berse sip yersrtrpres peerprersesrerarer: eeuenn precarpravessrererers Sots eat eres 
Sine eek pers cahies Were wee se mey wert rset hale Seep eee ce haga wees eee See 
Tee SSE Se RE SSS es V9 

Dee eS eas bte sc eube eee oe: phpheess See bskshe sec annsupepasrp etapa seep Ter pee es eae 

a nas Sy BERS a SISA SSS Pees hSts Stay syste tse. 

pisesieesetesesesitestess per se ses tse tes tes aehs claire esate epe eterna eewperpateenetrsorsepe ee 

- beteie sete trie sree t Pot ct tet rte tees tet ttn eset restate test ee bette bso st o—$-3 

Spictetsatsrogheapes eye Bae epg h ee shies a ese ea See re terse Seti pes bebe reese 
Webs eel ses tils bl terse eae DPS SE ESSE SES = : 
ei eeer Srerscee ss, Rat apepepeerseprerseti tier nsees: 

Pawn ene ae we NS eee PES St Sees een eerie a newt esses beta eeee ss 

Sst ee eae 

Sesssn pany sereceseseecrn een sas peees ep teeee cSs4 


7 
2 


oe ee es ae rare 
TL ee eee ee 
ase h +4: ett 
ty : BPR Oe reapers 
- * eae be 2 eee or 
ss > - 
: ross > + 




















ieendetetes ened SE gestelpi esas ; 
SP ee ot hr hai i ab eae od Ere heen ene ee ey eee SETS TOS etary 
Drs epee apes eee eepe Sipe t ep uebemphtepechelcne tents: aaee eae eehe eee Sect Ee es 



















































































a 
Se eeieees kis tyit iy rssrass rare an 
aint elehn siete tseets apres pe larsrecareessnwere 
peateteeseasee ses Senet ep epee eet pap veep rs rast earnes ates. 
Sepep rarer eee seer ere eer oe ap eere er erp ey ere erase. 
ree ree pee we eps ee ee aew eee ewenpwe serene mtreee newer 
Bes ee aa eee a aa career avase ra eeveee rere ee rte ees seen See sts} 
a Tape entr pores ere aaa ease ae eipestetr sects iris iret SS neeoRine nie 
je b-bd ob a a a ese oe eben aoe See 
SwiGers—s- Sens Sees Se oer Seah b sapere wer seis 
Spiesrssipie? Sek Ses cers Rodaineecbedbome baa le oa Poets is 
Rrseetsete se gest sere Spe pr pee sys peers Webra ye eRe ane a wee we ese 
Sagas aen sey Pes SSS TSI SS war gepee es ee fees pam ree pee Seherse sees pes 
i abdadtebinee ite reste. See weep RET Rae ke eae oe Rae te Oa ee ne gb er ee Ae a ni ee ee eae re 6 or ore res Sepueend a. 
erp le wpes rel tae ae ne ep eee Soe rains Sere ce Sec sd ee ree peep eee re Serer ergy =e a Pris bo! Aeebnguerasnducbonton tomb $2 oe 
parte G aban) ah ani mar has fea> fr Sanh arb ake b= ey ed oh ed we hae peheleh one a EMSRS: s cnedbaleiiane dh dnditcedhahedhieedhaiedh athens iedeeeeh - — rs or eae FO Re inh Sa a ee , 
Betetetiisieisiiig isis Sistite te tesa te ese a tetet re rieeetetreetees treo tots Menec nara reyeey. EC tab ease Sree tor ererses Siti SS SSS 
SS SPS Sees > Sa teaaes Sis ae bee aa mee en akg ten Sees eee arene eae eee at tear ee, — OG ent Bae dant ee ep ee - 
Sete dot rie bh pone Bnd — bh heap 25S — beeleeh ahd we Sab Fe) ab wa bah A oe be eee Sadapocetyeen wep eaere: ee Fern tty eae Sie stetactes 
Pets eee eee SS eS. Stoset Iyukaas et wy syn eeepersert wen reas aap burner Tepes esiiet ries Steste retype tes oni 
Siow Eheree cee be lel ee ee eee wake ered sa seeeetel oe pele See aees 
Dh ip arsed <i decd adh eve aed eh oaeeneh adh ened eee bet e eee ar wee ae om Show pet na no ob yn eg 
ae Petes ne tatoos ot Bone re teeta $e Oho ha Geb bd Perey ae pe $b 2 = Saeteteesess Firgeeserressiine ness Woy Wand meno em ek 
fore Feb ha bein embe bb pier bar beh mb Bp 4 Sores e. . ane eta ba pur bebe tom bebe Peers sa ee re ve a5 pee TeERpe Lies FP SRS SES SSeS TR ST ee nop ee wee me 
tas by ewe epee Remy esp he Pe Fl Sees hs weee Te ee Sree Pibreaeirerces ss teers ae erarceer ee ESM SI LaLa eee eete Se eae eee rete be Sees sete 
pop mth aad hd aedietpaiedbeneth dindobethandeaeds eed 2. S. [see Sliver dibordhadbainedaiedamed ondeekeinanemnes et a Se 
Say ee See LRT eee bb eee ba tnS tp ab epibet = ba bebotebwte cca CA ae pare ee woos 
SSEIEIIISS GS Tees ee ie De ee ee ee ee eee nee a ere reepe Pe ssrfes sees neeeieretnes 
a6 ay re eee Ses Pee See ree ewe wee ee. So sabatetoneteee nee eee Teer nl eee wore 
eee reer epee case re tists opie gis eee Stetsts rst pease Sorby Sete 
ase e peters bee is ieteiencieeeaciebnseeee erase cine $e Srshe wi reise teeees Sr este er eeS cee 
poe sere pire eee tibetss woke rela ss to re rhs res Ferre ier ere ert ee ier te ap rpeer a wea pe aeeey : rere sare 
etedes—bagee— $2454 ss CSESSSET SSeS eee eee eee eps epee rps preeeete SHS : 
sernre wear is Se Sete rate ysire. er eer re ae eee Pe reresine pete RADE 
PISS ets eee pEeteeettesecert else si Tete aera ses eceeey rey eicesc dee tepeees 
Sted piatet ie sedseriatlhebstes ead eceeTtadeaeee gen = xe: sigis Ssrrst : $S$e% ttelrenterteees 
sateics EAtererepseeseeeoe eyes seer re sapere pepe aeeee er Se he hw Se Te Oe a eae hth ee averse eRe swe 
eeteephadbeciapesseeteene eet eee Sapepeeer tere Severe ee rers rp eas erera bere serene rete: oo-ae ts vaew ae 
SERS whe he ae ee Eee ee ape awe WIEN oRL Ram RMP R AOE Re SOS AE SE SSRN REET. re s De ee hee es oy ae 
eee are eee a ee ae aie ars Se = ~ rere. See eee ee eee rere mieeint- baat $e pee bees ek 
seeteke eels eh sleerrrepersta po snprs epee en aes ekenpes eee ewe eek SS lyse e Sie rererers re eno 
pet torte She Sere arse ae ere is oo a sis Ske oe ie reece pace ses te Deets Sere ees ae 
Sock ancl dielheiedednanedtie dn if aad ced <ind deel dh oan deol . i phar Scinbeisteanteptbaied-ntiehd>bhindood beth e ten ene ~~ + 
Seis care prea peerney prekn esse ines Sees n cheer epee ese snp ye ee rp ESes eee pes Sent es eee eae Seer 
pitapsrsssss pe seel eesti ee rises + Seen are were y ye Seep epee ee oree Tereres ery 
Biter arssssS ts Sec ena sis sis =s is PES bend Shades —t— OS 252s iezeers 
aby awe be Sr rw org ene pO =m Syeeestet stats. PRESSES ATS sss ere .. rersrerstes sl ereyer at 
ee en ee ht 8 5 hehe hah 8 5 — EO LF ee OS ST RE REE OEE OL RT OT eee LS 22-6 raesres 
prtistsns rte Ee Sess om ood ch eine Oe San Gen eh doa gard om arabe bel 
RS ret isse see eee Peep e: Seer eee trees e a. ee area eRe pw an 
pore te tear res pares hs Tye seperti nye anes. Sp ene pare a een oe ee mee mare Fetes ea ecen en ee pd 
Soph pepe re ag eee Inmet teas te Debs eeeee aarp . 
posse res Oe ere ieee t ett ss ae: = ad ww Oe o oe Peete hee ere ars 
Beah meh bo oF Ppt ard og nee eine pmb om pees 4 Vetabnnpepent aterebers ree o-$—t— 6-5 piipTeteratseaees 
pistserisiss epee ter atest aise reris sis attest es Soesiees sisss tates =o 
Sawa e - are. = =e SPR eR CR eR eee Pe teed eae jad aetna Pe ne i 
PssS3eFIReS peeeshe ear Ta rae ers we Ra ee SN Re ep cree Aeseeey eee eeere : 
ae ae Shibensts ee Seeded ee he ok ed ee L ecdy cand aedeed a mar eer Orr eee. —s a2 ae + hen ee Dae 
Serpe peieteesissetss sta eitbisessatess Si baeechd soho eee Rae MO le .2a — o> oe = To yee nw} 
Teh ae pe ee Ly a py page ee pee pa sap tyes reise keane eee ee. ~o—' Tess 5 ried cee eae 
isele assets heye see ee rate Tee Sete Bere pe 


ee Pe ae eet = ss eee 2 4k 
+t — + » eae se 




























he 7 
Srerer Sarge phy erect ees 4 bore! 
wo See pe seg ugh por i) SiS he asenepee Sparel tam rete te esSeteitete eee Catt te Scene Cease ete ieee! 

STererepistsisige cipeperssas ere enieibeesieacereiees rete eee pesetissteiss Spestseeneristetssetststsestsi stg tees eset es pies ete artn ts eta e reget: 
ese s erie opt pistes attest ttre tes teee eer es Seen on re sn ee wrere mene > pbatereseses eeeaer roe e neers ee. ec teee Ite ese te see e ee 

~i gore rar ie eeepc erias: eee ssesestissisisesed ne tes PrEL PLA Seed eee 
(ib aebard pb obobertet ot _—- beeaaaea Sp cindanel Sead diedaedeed “~ 

steisitsi eeee es Se Ee SSS = 

a ~ — o= ——s + oe pa-¢<4<ndt-bohonbobe hee aad ~~ aed 

Ses eepastesitiesesseesctstts Siaeuberetsteeerectc: tezst = ‘ 
et ee Ete ohhandean deetabeton ar" taba = 
toranl 4 hembasd id bn cee arn inde aed dtvienal bans 


= 
reel reser era sst tess: Seeeel 
eatasitetabiese Ensen see, 

Pretesiesipirsstsirtpisepaessrasesses 













fakes we ay Bede ae eee a ap are eietnspis ites 
ay re ae he ht te ot oes Dp ddr bes RRR hase p yo bie wee wie be oe 
Spaeh archer eentak teat. & risseprstaretante dase tedoae semen i 
eee ese erie Tete t) <r Rear ree’ 
peateearresereon, 
ppieees <a 
iJ ‘Fare airs: 
5, gonetese 


rr 
paberorenaraee prrsyphys sire 


see 
a e4 were Fe. 2 
rrrree Corr oF Aabechaal pa 
Ie he ly 8 A Sy we Or Pe ae 
ph paren yp ge ee ee 
Prive) 


soubibriripigicest i igsrivecipest = reese re z <5 
et Se eseie relies: siti SoNe aS Se ae rere eae near ere. = 
=> ? Cie sia bsbocpwsenwawnepecee cae geet ie Soir ess ees pire ee 32042 -y eo as3 os +76 





eroeres) 




































Poe a ey ae é ieieace etets eis 
> : art =F; 22; =2° stistissecisti ih: es. . 
RsSetetes hat mie ng ore beak tn Om hae Seranee. oe era ie betserears : Kes oek S55 Es! : 
Se ipiesststeeersests Bisnle bse nase. wer prEpeape ts 4 ~ bn Bo Toy : 
~~ he eed ae a dp ind oe el eee eres % 
rts 4 
Teirsecseper trent se 


peste vere Santos 
Reap is Snccsacarseprers types etesesorece 


eiSSeeetetetetess bestitzes tee 





=o as 
eestetesess PEP ena SSaREciaee 

eMirssegisstseere ze a 

SeRtereceMeTe ee ieireraaas ateeee ieee i: 

esti setattapate leit teresa Sees 

pits Se Sie ee es estas sainsacasen sist eens 


a Tirh re rers steko teenie be ceenss anes, i ere 
pet testet se <= eee seeteastetesi Seeee sss =< 
375: ris ==. 


ete 





Cs = += s 
3335 si5= ange ep atee barter. ent eeeeey Seioioe sae Sarno - : 
rf siiipie iste Dercr ees piers erst > 2; : : 
eee seet ro ASRS eT aay 4 + = — & ms = ->. 
pipapepeskes, Ppicics tapisers ltr es gra pipe restate tos $e 2 323 4 : - 
DEES ee SS Senko, Pineiro poe $e~ Sa ee 
ee ahareoeee S Von enhe wan ee pe vam as wen 
3 iT ss4 Let 
bre tre Sno wary 
‘s—< ape ping ine kis ges ena ean 
> hehehe ny cere ee reese erie es 
= 


are. See be > 





ros oS ts rots 

CE daed-ede one Sadek aeenedel ae 

deseresptateissrert cher sesereeet gaeerits 
pnd rg ete iol dps eilenipgetn aie dt dio lemeed aed < ; 








Pi teretate ry * 
ears ner a bas pare en ts 
ee taae priaten inks enn bere mes 








54 athena ee 
we we be Lae eee ee 
tz Sioa 


Setrerts tS 
rir apasaes 
Seszrss estat 


apes wale. pire 
Sasscaseusesietesees 


predescerrocopeen 
phetreresserrate 


i Saeeeee be baent 
eed heap 





Rereaecneabres 
ieiiariewesssptree 
ae en be bane be 

pe savers’ 
Rip ier eeee eet eras 











Ay meee ee kine eee on wp kes 









te Sere 
4 Persie barn dam bry Pee Benn ye 
Peaebedaeetsted eget sed penta Seeetsetessstis rane pire porte 23: 
pepe ee ye a oe aodeiedend S gendaiel 
pesreests = Sareea estes ssh Selieeees te 
papie ae te eeepie weke enh Stee, Santee tees esis 
7 taper seyeaee teste tiiete peso pete pagers 
sigisie wets Sele Sele pater eee. eerie 


ra xoee rerexenserseceses 
perraeesteracemsrstetsesesrer scares 
Sess 


= eon. eo o-— oes -> ae Pate 
aeerieeets. ScaEsEseeEnicees SESSTALETE PEST esate oes Stites ipiee ee. 





ES 
Ss ixts. eeprprere 
es 








are piiisg stat 


Se aa ae, fp sigiiist: Se int anh oe b= +. ph etme bb eo 
eres srseres $5: ete te 
Sesspesisse tie sheerprphinriststssy eeeese rs Soregereses 


ppartebeeebannee 

















































Srsrtrostee sess tortie fete eerers (e338 2% -s-3 pak sa TSSsrst ao 
Perec pire cpt seat kebewent bans be basnene : SSE ER ease Pare ease = 

Ser critesatststrtsesisrstesessyresassaeieseie teeeee erie DSispelemececete ties 

SrEmisprrsee traepesrgcrstensyet 3 pty eiteaetes. aig teti tee $ 
Sorererstecesesesesrsptstetp estate bait 22. qepessresterstes <2 
bp trepertser terse ers peste ss ert riers rs ease ware eee ees = “eFs esse pernes i 
Pebrsptrepipisisistsiitatsts Sesetecstetert es paperes: bebe rare $m PSrits ptititisene renee pes gest atiese sete ee aeeee eee 
Srerbesstecd Sateecbatesese ebaeree Serapebesees terre ser eespere tet ereatasseiteeee 

> ee Se a nore aemsosere eae" sae ne — were Pon 
SStetse tae rarsess roe ose 

apse rit ++ > roetree=as reas rosieir sete; 





tn G ont bbe ee .aee 
Spa eepwesecewpecrerse = 
Dee ewee pee arew: Spares sasie 
Stixse erie paattteteieestreritsssc ities rect on 
eee rer ert. fire pies el ell wenn senaee 
FELIS TNs wa sett. SSigisst > 
Se Sereasss tbe eel ~ 








Peacrssrssetes 
Spesatrongereceess 
etree lees ote tee Saree 2 


pirstiisicssscerssststscstetes 
pipeiiqetaretee sts tsthes eit etes 













Siststees 
cepeprttsreee 
eeiisisetespincds hess 
; Sstsiss 










i aoe 











> 
Babhet eee ene bee ee 
db bib ob dh bree beer oles oped 

eb bb terroir fondu imbie Seared ob. 
eles seeteseet treet eere es 
rs Se Sstes bese er 
























Sts ere tt sees ie Sele les Sehatess 

spepcteenerarees eat 

=> Perr es lle ies tt aeenses 
cetanryee : 


posi 

tetestessebibasstteeeieesieeiseaie 

23 me 
gtacesratcslopetstsentssate tarsi reese eres 


igis eee est 





4-09 ae 
a5435 arose 


is 
f 
tt 
i 









o-oo ees sore 
ete Sree presS: 
: e393-o3es~>. 

rest ees ae —erheieere 
sre: eas Se. ote ee Soe oo 


itis 
a 332 
bless ts SiwaRRPAEK ATOR ROR ET TIRE RRAS TOA U RS ERT ET 
feriptsiigstiessasisiassesssiassisetwseseagegisaitistes eetet tees asst) 
“2s 
eiees = 


pitetstsispeietereeres perer posta saeceebesesenees “2 

z tit et beset wetatbanssrereses PS tstsee <3 F 
Sitstet : pistes raks rs Pibebsrass sr ersesats tes Petrie sr stecsa ss exes Setstss. 
Sri Set actsetesesesetefs eGo b ae bab abana ae le hae ee alee wR eRe Fe rvastseberarelese ee 











eee e were aes 







